Brexit

David Kurten: When will you acknowledge the benefits and opportunities which a full Brexit will bring to London?

The Mayor: Chairman, I cannot think of any benefits or opportunities that crashing out of the European Union (EU) on 29March [2019] without a deal would bring to London. The fantasy of a painless no-deal Brexit flies in the face of economic facts. We have already seen the damage done since the referendum result. For 1.3million low-income Londoners, a weakened pound has led to food and energy price hikes and has exacerbated an already challenging cost of living.
For businesses in London and across the country, uncertainty has hit investment and productivity. Economic growth is below what it would otherwise have been. The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) has said that a no-deal Brexit would result in disruption for businesses and families and will leave the UK poorer and less competitive in the long term. Just recently, RalfSpeth [Prof Dr RalfSpeth KBE FREng], the boss of Jaguar Land Rover, warned that it would lead to the closure of plants and major job losses.
The independent study I published last year [2018] showed that leaving the single market and Customs Union would do damage to jobs, growth and livelihoods in London and the UK. These predictions have since been supported by the Government’s own forecasts. The London Resilience Forum’s work showed that the Government had failed to set out clear plans for a no-deal Brexit in key areas such as food, fuel, border disruption and essential medical supplies.
Perhaps most distressing is the toll this is taking on 1million EU Londoners and their families. They will now need to apply for settled status in the country they call home. I am deeply concerned that the Home Office’s proposed fees will prevent vulnerable people from applying and leaving them subject to the Government’s hostile environment. The Prime Minister must address this as a matter of urgency. I have already written to her to raise these issues but extremely disappointed that I am yet to receive a response.

Commissioner Dick and Knife Crime

Peter Whittle: I note that Metropolitan Police Commissioner Dick appeared on Radio 4's Today Programme on 27 December 2018 and claimed that knife crime in London has "levelled off".1 Given the two fatal stabbings in Camberwell and the West End on 1 January and a triple stabbing in broad daylight in Leyton on 5 January, I would take this with a pinch of salt. Do you know on what basis the Commissioner is making this claim?

1https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-46694016

The Mayor: I want to begin by taking this opportunity to send my condolences to the families and friends of those who have lost loved ones to violent crime in our city, which sadly includes the horrific fatal stabbing of 14-year-old JaydenMoody in Waltham Forest whose family I met on Friday. In the exchange you referred to, AssemblyMember Whittle, the Commissioner [of Police of the Metropolis, Cressida Dick CBE QPM] acknowledged that knife crime is a very big challenge, not just in London, but across the country and in big cities in particular. She set out that, due to efforts from the whole of the MPS, including the City Hall funded Violent Crime Task Force; they are beginning to see that knife crime has levelled off and the most important indicator - knife injury of under-25-year-olds - has been consistently coming down over the last seven months of 2018. As the Commissioner pointed out, this was due to hard work by officers and staff and I want to echo her thanks to their efforts. There has been a 15% reduction in knife injury of under-25-year-olds last year [2018]. While these figures are encouraging, neither the Commissioner nor I are complacent. The level of violent crime in London is unacceptable and any murder is one too many. Keeping Londoners safe is my number one priority and I am determined to do everything in my power to tackle the scourge of violence. That is why I have increased the policing element of council tax and diverted business rates into policing. Many Assembly Members, by the way, voted against my budget, which allowed me to do this. We have also funded the Violent Crime Task Force, which works around the clock taking knives and weapons off our streets, set up Violence Reduction Unit to tackle the root causes of crime as well as investing £45million in the Young Londoners Fund to give young people a pathway from crime.

Peter Whittle: Thank you very much, MrMayor. In relation to that interview with the Commissioner, when she uses language like that it has levelled off, does that not strike, first of all, a slightly complacent note, but also it feels more like she is commenting on crime as opposed to acting to the challenge of crime?

Sadiq Khan: I do not think so. If she does not do interviews and do media and respond to questions; she is criticised for not doing media or responding to questions, and when she does she is accused of being a commentator rather than a police officer. Our Commissioner is not complacent in the slightest. What she is trying to demonstrate is that the policing is starting to have an impact, nowhere near the levels we would want to see, but it is starting to have an impact in the positive sense of the word.

Peter Whittle: OK, MrMayor, but you might excuse me for being slightly confused therefore because it seems that, even though she is saying it has levelled off, as it stands at the moment we seem to have had the same number of people who have been killed up to this time in January [2019] as we had last time [2018]. In fact I have, by my calculation, seven people murdered in London as opposed to six by this time last year [2018]. Now, OK, we can go on about numbers and what have you but whatever it is it seems to me that what is different is that last year there was horror about it and outrage. What I am worrying about is that this is becoming slightly normalised now.

Sadiq Khan: This is never a point that is raised and I want to respond in a sensitive manner because there could be bereaved family members watching this exchange. So there are two things, one is what the Commissioner was talking about was the data we have in relation to knives used to injure people where the victim is below the age of 25; that is where there is a particular concern. What the Commissioner was referring to is in the seven months towards the end of last year [2018] we had seen a reduction from the previous year [2017]. That is the first point. The second point is it is just worth examining for a moment the homicides that are taking place now and which the Commissioner has referred to. So, in relation to the homicides in the first few weeks of this year [2019], a number of them have been domestic violence homicides, which are as tragic and as concerning. In fact last year [2018] we saw an increase in domestic violence homicides and so the reason why I suspect there was huge concern last year [2018] was also the nature of the homicides, they were in a public space and people were concerned. So any homicide is very, very serious, but I do not want you to think anybody is normalising a homicide, homicides are literally the most serious crime you can commit.

Peter Whittle: Fair enough, MrMayor, but are you aware of the level of exasperation there is among the public and the sense in which there seems to be no leadership from you and the Commissioner on this issue? Full of good intentions perhaps; but no real leadership. As my colleague said earlier, a lot of leadership coming from London on Brexit and things like this; when it comes to this, for example this week you started off our meeting today by talking about the new appointee of the Violent Crime Reduction Unit. Now, so far as I can see, MrMayor, that was a perfect opportunity to appoint a crime specialist. I cannot see for the life of me what - brilliant politician though she might be on a local level - exactly her credentials are for this job. This requires someone who is steeped in surely violent crime.

Sadiq Khan: There are a number of points raised there, Chairman, which I will deal with in turn. So firstly in relation to the issue of violent crime and exasperation, of course I understand the concerns of Londoners in relation to the increase in violent crime across our city, as indeed across the entire country, over the last five years. I am a Londoner raising my family in this city and so I feel it as a parent, as a Londoner, and of course as the Mayor. That is one of the reasons why I do not understand for the life of me why the previous Mayor [Boris Johnson], knowing there are these massive cuts, did not increase council tax as he was entitled to do so to help support our police rather than seeing a massive decline in police officer numbers.

Peter Whittle: I do not really care about it, MrMayor.

Sadiq Khan: The sum of it is he does not care about police officer numbers. I find that astonishing. Council tax increases pays for police officers and so he should care about police officers numbers because it is police officers‑‑

Peter Whittle: No, I am thinking about this administration, MrMayor.

Tony Arbour: You have run out of time. Thank you very much.

Temporary Accommodation

Tom Copley: What steps are you taking to reduce the cost of temporary accommodation to London Boroughs?

The Mayor: Thank you, Chairman. It is wrong that so many Londoners, many working, most with children, live in temporary accommodation. They live in limbo for increasingly longer time periods, often outside their local area. As well as uncertainty, they face disruption to education, childcare, support networks and jobs. Others endure cramped and unsuitable conditions, sometimes in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
Not only is temporary accommodation impacting on the families affected but, as you highlight, the costs also fall on London councils’ budgets, budgets that are already under severe pressure. One recent assessment found that London boroughs spent £734million on temporary accommodation last year [2018], an increase of more than a third compared to five years earlier. The analysis suggested a quarter of that money came from councils’ general funds as benefits fell short.
That is why my team and I are doing all we can to help councils deal with the costs of temporary accommodation and, crucially, to provide better-quality places for those affected to live. We are investing £11million in the Pan-London Accommodation Collaborative Enterprise (PLACE), an innovative programme to deliver 200 precision-manufactured homes for boroughs to lease and use as temporary accommodation on sites where development will not start for a number of years. We are also supporting Capital Letters, a new collaborative initiative to enable boroughs to strengthen their position in a fiercely competitive market to secure private-rented accommodation. I am pleased to see this making progress after my team worked on early plans with boroughs and City Hall contributed funding towards a feasibility study.
Fundamentally, the Government must tackle the root causes of homelessness so that fewer Londoners end up in temporary accommodation in the first place. First, Ministers must properly fund London boroughs’ work to prevent homelessness, including their work to meet new duties under the Homelessness Reduction Act. Second, the Government must reverse its damaging welfare reforms, which are fuelling homelessness and making it so challenging for boroughs to accommodate homeless households. Third, as I have argued, the private rented sector must be radically overhauled to make it more secure and affordable. The ending of private rented sector tenancies is now the single-largest cause of homelessness in London.
Finally and fundamentally, the Government needs to invest more in council and social rented housing. As Shelter’s commission reminded us last week, among the many reasons to significantly boost long-term investment in social housing is that it will deliver a much better return than the huge sums currently spent on temporary accommodation. Imagine what more London could do to provide social housing with an extra £734million to spend.

Tom Copley: Thank you for that answer, MrMayor. I am pleased that you mentioned PLACE. Of course, in Lewisham we have PLACE/Ladywell, which is modular-constructed popup temporary accommodation. Lewisham is going to be doing a further four of those schemes. I wonder if you could say a bit more about how much move-on accommodation for people coming out of temporary accommodation such as hostels and refuges has been set up through your funding programme and if there is more you can do in that area.

Sadiq Khan: Move-on accommodation is so important for the reasons you have alluded to, as a stepping stone. We have funded the Tenancy Sustainment Team, which supports about 3,000 to 3,500 clearinghouse properties for former rough sleepers. We have also allocated, as you will be aware, £50million from our Affordable Homes Programme to boost this work.
One of the things that we know is some concern around supported housing and there being inadequate support for the support services. As a consequence of our lobbying of the Government, it has agreed that a proportion of the £50million that I have talked about can be used for support services and that the housing costs for supporting housing will remain within the welfare system. We are in discussions now with the various providers about how much additional move-on accommodation they can provide using this money as part of the deal we have negotiated with the Government.

Tom Copley: Thank you for that answer. You have talked about some of the issues that we need central Government to sort out. Would you agree as well that there is a big issue with lack of legal aid for people who need to challenge when they have been put into temporary accommodation that is inappropriate? Do you think that the Government needs to reverse some of the cuts that it has made to legal aid as well, which are preventing people from getting access to justice?

Sadiq Khan: I want to see a change in the law. Some of the legislation is not fit for purpose and is causing huge problems. Also, we need support for advisers to give good advice to those tenants affected by some of these laws including legislation and also regulation. Of course I support access to good legal advice. The changes to Legal Aid have caused huge problems. Access to justice is one of the pillars of the welfare state with access to free healthcare, access to social benefits and welfare support and access to legal support as well.

Childhood Mental Health

Navin Shah: According to ‘Mind’, support for childhood mental health is approaching breaking point – services are fragmented, inconsistent and stretched. Through their ‘Whole School Approach to Mental Health’ Mind are piloting a new way of supporting the mental health of everyone involved in school life: pupils, the entire school workforce, parents and wider community. Mind in London and nationally are collecting evidence throughout the pilot and a report will be published towards the end of 2019. How do you think you can support Mind in London to further their pilot in London’s Schools?

The Mayor: Thank you, Chairman. The wellbeing of children in London is the cornerstone of building a healthy and successful future for our city and I commend Mind’s focus on this issue. Our Health Inequalities Strategy sets out a clear set of aims to ensure that no person’s health suffers because of who they are or where they live, with better mental health at the heart of this strategy. We must ensure that we give children and young people the support they need. That is why my team and I have been working with partners, including the NHS and local government to enhance support for young Londoners as well as calling for the Government to accelerate improvements in mental health provision and support for schools.
At the end of the last school term, I wrote to London head teachers to share a toolkit of resources they can use to support the young people in their care. This includes a new website produced with the Healthy London Partnership collating resources on a wide range of issues including training, guidance and digital support, as well as practical advice and guidance on implementing a whole-school approach to mental health, such as being piloted by Mind. The whole-school approach makes mental health and wellbeing everybody’s business, involving governors, school leaders and staff, students, families and the wider community. My Young Londoners Fund is supporting schools and colleges across London to work in partnership to improve the mental health and wellbeing of their students. We are running our youth and mental health first aid training to all state schools in London, a key commitment in our Health and Equality Strategy. This will provide school staff with the skills and confidence to spot the signs of mental distress and guide a young person through the situation. Our Healthy Schools London programme also supports schools to develop and deepen their focus on health and wellbeing, including mental health and emotional wellbeing.
AssemblyMemberShah will be aware that Government cuts have led to unsustainable pressures on schools, the NHS, local government and its services. I will continue to call on Ministers to prioritise the resources we need to sustain the health of children and young people.

Navin Shah: Thank you, MrMayor. I know that in the past your team has supported a mental health project called Time to Change, which was very welcome, partially or jointly funded by Mind. Can you give a commitment that in a similar vein your team will work with London Mind with its current project working with schools?

Sadiq Khan: I would be happy to give that commitment. What Mind is doing in this area is fantastic. As in other areas of course we will work with them.

Navin Shah: I will get them to write to you to promote the project and whatever support that your team can give. MrMayor, the Royal Society of Arts suggests that the whole-school approach to mental health is more effective than training one or two mental health champions. What are you doing to ensure your Thrive programme learns lessons from this?

Sadiq Khan: The first thing I say about this point, which is mental health affects all of us, mental ill health affects many of us, and that is why the approach you talked about is so important, the Whole Schools Approach and the work Mind is doing. A number of things we are doing, Assembly Member Shah, in relation to this, so Thrive London are having many discussions with Londoners and service providers to ensure we maximise the potential of children and young people, particularly around this issue of mental ill health. Having youth mental health first aiders is another way of ensuring schools and staff are equipped with the skills to support a young person. It is really important to be trained as a mental health first aider. We are increasing that not just in relation to schools and colleges but also across places of work in London as well and we are going to carry on supporting Thrive in what they do in this area.

Navin Shah: Lastly, MrMayor, London’s record when it comes to mental health of children and adolescents is rather poor when you look at the statistics. When you work with providers like Mind can you ensure that work is done with a view to improve the picture and the bad statistics that we have when it comes to children and adolescent mental health care?

Sadiq Khan: I can do that and can I just say this, just to reassure you, AssemblyMemberShah? When I first took charge of the London Health Board I asked to make sure that the Chairman of the Cavendish Square Group - this is the group of London’s 10 NHS trusts responsible for mental health services - also come to the London Health Board as well and they have been really useful in the role that they have played as members of the London Health Board. Of course I will make sure I take on board what you have said. I will just make this final point, which is mental health services for too long has been the Cinderella service of the NHS and in relation to Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) it has been even more depressing in relation to the lack of support given to this area. I continue to lobby for this publicly and privately. The Cavendish Square Group get it and some of the changes you will see over the next period will be a consequence of the work over the last two years.

Navin Shah: Thank you very much, MrMayor.

Executive Pay Gap

Andrew Dismore: The executive pay gap is rising and in the first few working days of the year, executives can earn more than the average worker earns in the whole year. How can you encourage businesses in London to ensure that all employees benefit from any successes?

The Mayor: Thank you, Chairman. A report published last year [2018] by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) and the High Pay Centre found that in 2017 average chief executive officer (CEO) pay in Financial Times Stock Exchange (FTSE) 100 companies had increased by 23% from the previous year [2017]. It also found that 68 FTSE 100 CEOs now earn more than 100 times the average UK worker’s salary of £29,000, according to the Office for National Statistics. It would take the average UK worker 195 years to earn the mean FTSE 100 CEO reward package.
These stats make for uncomfortable reading and, while all of these companies are publicly listed and shareholders can vote on pay policies, there are many large private companies not required to follow these rules. I am sure you would have seen the new regulations that came into effect at the start of this year [2019] that will force UK-listed firms with more than 250 employees to disclose pay ratios and explain the gap between the earnings of top executives and workers. This is a positive step and should help to provide some transparency to the pay gap and give workers a voice.
I have always been clear that the success of any business is a collective effort. Too often corporate achievement is not shared fairly enough. The most important first step that any business can take towards ensuring fair pay is by ensuring that those in the lowest-paid jobs are receiving a fair deal for their work. That means paying the London Living Wage and I urge all employers to seek accreditation with the Living Wage Foundation.
Beyond that, I would like to see more employers looking seriously at the gap between the highest and lowest-paid people in their organisations. This week we launched beta testing for my Good Work Standard and my officials are now working with the pioneering business that are eager to seek accreditation and champion the highest standards in pay and conditions. Through it we hope to influence more and more of London’s employers to pay the London Living Wage and create more high-quality, flexible work opportunities so that employees can progress in their chosen careers and benefit from the success of their companies and the economy.

Andrew Dismore: Thank you, MrMayor. We have moved from child obesity to ‘Fat Cat Friday’, 4January this year [2019], which is the date by which, just three days into the working year, the average CEO of a FTSE 100 company would receive an amount equivalent to the take-home pay of a UK fulltime worker on the average pay for the whole of 2019, which is up 11% compared to last year [2018]. The gap is wider still when compared to those on the National Minimum Wage. What does this enormous executive pay gap mean for economic fairness in London?

Sadiq Khan: Our city is demonstrably unequal. It is a good example of an unequal society. Unequal societies are not simply less productive but they are less happy. I am really nervous. If you think about a caravan, those at the front of the caravan are getting further and further away at the back of the caravan. That is why it is really important that we have policies to not just reduce inequality but improve the life conditions of some of the poorest Londoners.

Andrew Dismore: Would you agree with the CIPD and the High Pay Centre in their call for a major overhaul of how executive pay is set in the UK, including corporate remuneration committees being more diverse in terms of gender, ethnicity and professional background, and for executive performance to be based on benchmarks including employee wellbeing and workforce training? What is your view of the implications of the Prime Minister breaking her promise to include workers on company boards?

Sadiq Khan: You raise a number of really important points. As far as transparency is concerned, I genuinely think that sunlight is the best disinfectant. That is why, when I became Mayor, I voluntarily published our pay lists not just by gender so that you can look at the gender pay gap but also by ethnicity, which is really important. We are doing some work in relation to disability and on the other protected characteristics as well. Unless we know and can measure, how can we realise when we have a problem that needs addressing?
Side by side with that has to be an action plan. There is no point in simply knowing that we have a gender pay gap or an ethnicity pay gap. We have to have plans for how we rectify that. That is what Our Time and the other policies we have are all about.
Unfortunately, not all businesses and not all of the public sector do it voluntarily. That is why there is a need for legislation to require them to do so. I would like to see even small companies, when they are able to do so, publish this data. I will give you one example. It often means that some members of staff who have lacked confidence to ask for a pay rise will do so knowing that they see their peers doing similar work and getting paid a higher salary.
In relation to representation on boards, it is really important for there to be representation on boards so that you can look somebody in the eye if you are giving yourself a massive pay rise and somebody is not getting a massive pay rise and trying to justify to them why you deserve that pay rise. Also, the criteria for giving pay rises needs to be looked into and you raised some really good points in relation to some of the things a good employer should be looking at when they are deciding whether to give themselves a pay rise and a pat on the back.

Andrew Dismore: Thank you.

Misuse of drones [1]

Andrew Dismore: How prepared are the Metropolitan Police, working with airport management, to deal with the misuse of drones obstructing the operation of airports in London?

The Mayor: At both airports, Aviation Policing have conducted a vulnerability assessment, in liaison with other agencies, and have an operational plan to deal with drone sightings and misuse. Overall responsibility for counter drone systems rests with the airport operators and both airports have arrangements and plans in place, with which we will continue to operate. Aviation Policing are piloting a specific counter drone system, and the MPS has access to other systems, internally and via external providers, all of which contribute to a coordinated operational plan

Rail Competition

Florence Eshalomi: The Office of Rail and Road has announced new plans to allow rival Train Operating Companies to operate on the same routes to drive up competition. What effect, if any, will those plans have on the Rail Network in London and its users?

The Mayor: The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) is currently consulting on changes around how open access rail operators are regulated. Open access operators run services that are not contracted out by public sector bodies, such as the Department for Transport (DfT) and TfL. There are currently no local London services provided this way and the proposed changes do not make such services any more likely in the future. However, while the open access consultation does not offer much opportunity to improve commuter rail services in London, I have made it clear to the Government on countless occasions that changing these services is badly needed. Communities are being let down by poor reliability and service levels on Southern rail routes operating out of London Bridge and Victoria and Great Northern routes operating out of Moorgate. Frequent delays and cancellations are causing commuter misery and negatively affecting quality of life, productivity levels and the economy.
Under the current franchise agreement, these routes will be available for refranchising in September 2021, following a two-year re-letting process. I have previously spoken with the Secretary of State [for Transport, Rt Hon. Chris Grayling MP] about transferring contracting authority for some of these routes to TfL, which would allow customers to experience the sort of benefits enjoyed by customers on the London Underground and TfL Rail. We continue to await an update from the DfT. London Overground and TfL Rail offer lower fares and are integrated with the wider London transport network and report some of the highest levels of customer satisfaction and reliability in the country. The most recent ORR annual average performance statistics show that they are both in the top 5 national rail operators. The improved services are reflected in passenger numbers since Silverlink Metro services were transferred to TfL in 2007. Ridership on the like for like network has increased by 250% compared with 50% of other London train operating companies (TOCs). TfL’s Commissioner [Mike Brown MVO] has met KeithWilliams [Chair, Rail Review] as part of his review of how the country’s railways are organised and TfL will submit evidence.

Florence Eshalomi: Thank you, MrMayor. It is great to see that the TfL Commissioner has met with them. On that, I totally agree with you in terms of we do need to see more competition, but it is about what real benefits London passengers will see from this. You said that the Commissioner will be meeting with ORR, but has TfL investigated looking at open access to provide more services across London? If not, will you commit to this?

Sadiq Khan: They have not previously investigated this issue. The reason is because the opportunities are limited, because the network already is closed to capacity for much of the day. What we want to do is duplicate existing operations, given the additional cost that they would involve. The approach from TfL is, as I have said, is to gain responsibility for the suburban rail services.

Florence Eshalomi: One of the concerns from the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers [RMT] is that if this is allowed to go ahead, there could be more fragmentation and profiteering because we could see some operators essentially cherry-picking which routes they want to run. In a sense, because Network Rail will be getting that additional charge, Network Rail would be happy and so would the DfT. Do you believe that there should be more scrutiny on what is being proposed on this open access and how can we continue to push what you and I and a number of us agree with in terms of more devolution of some of those rail routes that run through London?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you for raising the RMT’s concerns. I understand those concerns, particularly around the country in relation to this side of maximising revenues for local rail. As far as London is concerned, we cannot see what there would be attractive to a private operator to try to take advantage of the open access process. In the London context, the only operator who has taken advantage in the past is the Heathrow Express, which as you know, a standard single ticket costs £27 for the premium service that they provide. We do not think it is going to be an issue in London going forward. What we need to do is continue to lobby the Government in relation to allowing us to take charge of the suburban lines coming into London, the commuter lines coming into London. We think we can do a better job. The point we have made to the Government is we have unequivocal evidence of the better service that is provided by TfL running these things. We are going to carry on lobbying. I think any assistance that can be given from any part of the London society, from trade unions to politicians to commuters to business, is welcome. We have to carry on lobbying the Government.

Childhood obesity

Andrew Boff: How are your plans to tackle childhood obesity progressing?

The Mayor: London has one of the highest childhood obesity rates in Europe with almost 40% of children aged 10 and 11 overweight or obese. This problem cannot just be swept under the carpet. It is not only unfairly harming the future life chances of many young Londoners but placing pressure on an already strained health service. There is also without a doubt a social justice issue. The evidence shows that it is children from poorer areas of our city who are disproportionately affected with young people in Barking and Dagenham almost twice as likely to be overweight or obese as those from Richmond.
While many of the things, which could help tackle childhood obesity, are the responsibility of others, the food manufacturers, the NHS, the Government, other advertisers, I am determined to do what I can with the limited powers that I have through my leadership role as Mayor. That is why I am implementing a host of ground-breaking measures to tackle this obesity epidemic. This includes setting up a new Child Obesity Task Force headed by PaulLindleyOBE [children’s welfare campaigner] and ProfessorCorinnaHawkes [Professor of Food Policy, Director of the Centre of Food Policy, City University]. We have already announced proposals to restrict the opening of new hot food takeaways within 400metres of schools, introduced the Healthy Early Streets and Healthy Schools programmes, published a new Sports and Health Inequality Strategy and supported initiatives like the Daily Mile. We have started getting water fountains installed also across our city.
We are also banning advertising of harmful junk food and drink from the entire Transport for London network from 25 February [2019]. This decision follows a public consultation, which found overwhelming support from Londoners. The aim of this policy is to reduce the exposure of London’s children to the marketing of unhealthy products as there is a growing body of evidence showing that, the more children are exposed to junk food adverts, the more likely they are to eat these foods and become overweight or obese.
I know the Conservative Party is against our plans to ban junk food adverts on the TfL network and many of our other policies to tackle child obesity. We have already seen large advertisers, including McDonalds, confirm they will continue to advertise on the TfL network under the new rules by advertising their products that are not too high in fat, salt and sugar. It would appear the ban is working in bringing about positive change even before it begins and also shows why TfL do not anticipate this policy will have a big impact on advertising revenue. There will always be some who argue against bold change like this and try to make light of it in an attempt to undermine a serious and effective policy. Just like with my plan to tackle air pollution in London, which the Conservative Party is also against, I know this is the right thing to do.

Andrew Boff: In the last Mayor’s Question Time (MQT), which took place on 20December [2018], you said that the advertising industry was making millions of pounds advertising junk food to children. You may be aware, MrMayor, that there are specific codes and guidelines that prevent advertising to children. Will you take this opportunity to correct the record for that misleading statement?

Sadiq Khan: No, I do not. It is a good example of this, by the way, Chairman, of a Conservative Assembly Member batting for a vested interest rather than the public interest. I will not resile from being an advocate for the public interest and supporting those children and their families who are tackling the issue of obesity and overweight children.

Andrew Boff: When you said, MrMayor, verbatim:
“Chairman, on the one hand I have a choice, which is to listen to people who make millions and millions of pounds advertising junk food to children.”
You stick by that statement to the advertising industry? You are basically saying that the advertising industry is breaking their code of conduct, is that correct?

Sadiq Khan: No, that is not at all what I am saying, Chairman. What I am saying is I prefer the advice I received from the National Centre for Social Research. If I look at the research done by Cancer Research UK rather than lobbying from the Conservative Party for the advertising industry.

Andrew Boff: OK, you are saying the advertising industry is sticking to the code of guidance about not advertising to children?

Sadiq Khan: Chairman, I am quite clear on --

Andrew Boff: Previously you said they did not.

Tony Arbour: He has just asked you a straight question.

Sadiq Khan: I was answering and was interrupted and not protected by the Chairman. I mean, Chairman, you have to the job impartially.

Tony Arbour: It is very rare for you to ask for protection.

Sadiq Khan: Chairman, just try to pretend to be impartial for a change, it would be nice.

Tony Arbour: I am invariably impartial, MrMayor. I did not take you up on your assertion, for example, that a Member of the Assembly was in the pocket of the advertisers, which I think you said.

Sadiq Khan: What I said was this is a good example of the Conservative Party defending a vested interest and me defending the public interest and I do not resile from that at all. The point I was making in response to a question put to me was I receive a number of pieces of advice, some of those are from those in the advertising industry, some of those who make a lot of money from advertising, some of those are those who are health experts and conduct research, and I prefer to choose the advice from the latter rather than the former.

Andrew Boff: MrMayor, after the last question time of course you did a U-turn and I am glad to see that your spokesman confirmed that adverts for charity and fundraising events would not face an automatic ban, which just goes to show that questions in this Assembly do work.

Sadiq Khan: Chairman, if that is a question --

Andrew Boff: Why did your provisional Food Strategy --

Sadiq Khan: In answer to the question that I did a U-turn, no, it was always the case --

Andrew Boff: No, I did not ask you a question, MrMayor. It was a statement.

Sadiq Khan: There you go, Chairman. Again, Chairman, I am doing your job for you.

Andrew Boff: MrMayor, as far as I can see, you are the one that is looking to the Chairman for support because you are having a problem answering the question. I understand that. MrArbour is not going to give you that kind of support.

Sadiq Khan: Chairman, to answer the question, there was one there --

Andrew Boff: Why did your Food Strategy --

Sadiq Khan: The point is this. The assertion was made that I performed a U-turn after the last MQT and I was politely saying to the Assembly Member through the Chairman, as is the proper form to do these things, that I did not perform a U-turn, it has always been the case that Macmillan Cancer [Support] and others who do great work will carry on being able to advertise on TfL and I am really disappointed that the Conservative Party is scaremongering and scaring charities in this way.

Andrew Boff: Perhaps, MrMayor, you could write to me, MrMayor, and quote the chapter and verse of where that exception was in your Food Strategy.

Sadiq Khan: We have always been quite clear, Chairman, in relation to the consultation --

Andrew Boff: Forgive me; I have been unable to find it.

Sadiq Khan: -- in relation --

Andrew Boff: Will you write to me? Will you write to me, MrMayor?

Sadiq Khan: No, I shall answer now, I will answer now. We have MQT; you have asked a question, let me respond. The question asked is in relation to the help we can give to Macmillan Cancer. We have been quite clear during the consultation and other discussions we have had with Macmillan and many others that they will not be caught by the junk food ban. The junk food advertising ban is deliberately targeted towards those who, through advertising target children or their parents and carers to eat foods that are high in fat, sugar and salt. Clearly, it does not apply to people like Macmillan Cancer and I am really sorry they are being scared by AssemblyMemberBoff.

Andrew Boff: Similarly, MrMayor, you did another U-turn, your spokesman confirmed, about the advertising of olive oil, cheese, mayonnaise, soy sauce, stock cubes and pesto. The question I have for you, just to finish - this is a question and then you can do an answer rather than a ridiculous statement - when are you going to start caring really about the problem of obesity amongst young people in London and put into place policies that actually work rather than ones that are geared towards press releases, MrMayor?

Sadiq Khan: There you have it, Chairman. Four weeks of working closely with the advertising industry and that is the best he could do. Let me answer his questions.
For question number one, unlike the Conservative Party, I support banning adverts for junk food on the TfL network.
For number two, the Conservative Party is scaremongering not just hardworking, fantastic charities but those of us who enjoy pesto, butter, soy sauce, olive oil and stock cubes. The lengths the Conservative Party will take to get into the media is quite astonishing. They are now trying to put up these straw foods to try to get into the media.
Can I, through you, Chairman, reassure the AssemblyMember that I will continue to tackle the issue of child obesity in London? The Conservative Party may laugh at those children who are suffering the consequences of obesity and overweight children. The Conservative Party may laugh at the misery it causes children and the families. The Conservative Party may laugh at the cost to our economy and productivity of obese and overweight children. The Conservative Party may laugh at the cost to the NHS of obesity and overweightness. The Conservative Party may mock our policies to tackle the issue of obesity and overweightness‑‑

Andrew Boff: I mock them, MrMayor, because they are not bloody working, are they?

Sadiq Khan: ‑‑but I will not do so. It is a very serious issue and it is really important I take it seriously.

Andrew Boff: They are not working.

Sadiq Khan: I am being interrupted, Chairman, during my answer. I do not need your protection because I will carry on talking. The important point‑‑

Tony Arbour: Yes, but‑‑

Sadiq Khan: Here he goes. He has woken up now. Here he goes.

Tony Arbour: ‑‑ you are filibustering. You told us that you wanted to answer four points that he made. You have answered many more than that. I would have anticipated that if any Assembly Member thinks you are going on too long, they should say so. It really is‑‑

Sadiq Khan: Chairman, I just wish we had [Rt Hon.] JohnBercow [MP, Speaker of the House of Commons] here rather than you.

Tony Arbour: I would rather you had JohnBercow on your side because that is the way he appears to be. However, AssemblyMemberBoff?

Sadiq Khan: It is all coming out now with this impartial Chairman, is it not? It is all coming out now. Scratch the surface.

Andrew Boff: Perhaps we can look at that. I think I have an undertaking that he is going to write to me and let me know when the --

Sadiq Khan: No, Chairman. No such undertaking was given by me.

Andrew Boff: You are not going to give me that information?

Sadiq Khan: No, Chairman. I gave him no such undertaking.

Andrew Boff: OK. You do not want to give me the information I have asked for?

Sadiq Khan: What I agreed to do, Chairman, was answer the question put by the AssemblyMember‑‑

Andrew Boff: Once again, you will not give me this information?

Sadiq Khan: ‑‑during MQT, which is the purpose of MQT.

Andrew Boff: You will not give me this information I have asked for?

Tony Arbour: I support you on that because that is precisely what you did say, yes.

Andrew Boff: Fine.

Tony Arbour: All right. Have you finished?

Andrew Boff: Yes, I have, yes.

Sadiq Khan: Have you finished? I had so much more material.

New Year’s Eve 2018 Fireworks cost

Susan Hall: What was the final cost for the 2018-19 New Year’s Eve firework display?

The Mayor: London’s spectacular New Year’s Eve fireworks is the largest annual display in Europe. It is enjoyed by over 100,000 spectators, watched by over 11million people on television across the UK and is beamed out to tens of millions across the world, promoting London on the world stage. The total budget for the 2018 fireworks was £2.3million. This is the same as 2017 and in line with the budget spend in previous years and by the previous Mayor [Rt Hon. Boris Johnson MP]. The cost of the pyrotechnics in the fireworks event is the same as any spent by the previous Mayor. On top of the £2.3million budget, £800,000 was raised from ticket sales, which was spent on infrastructure for the event.
There is no doubt that the fireworks display helps to attract millions of visitors to London every New Year’s Eve, provide an income for our businesses, tourist attractions and hotels. The statistics are still being analysed for the 2018 fireworks, but in 2017 over £10million was spent by ticketholders alone, and that does not even factor in those who came to the event without a ticket.
This year, to help promote the city and reassure Londoners, businesses, tourists and investors that London remains open to them, the theme for the fireworks was “London is Open”. The message has never been more important, particularly for the over 1million EU Londoners who have made this city their home and who are feeling particularly vulnerable as we approach Brexit. The fireworks display, which included a soundtrack featuring European artists, showed the world that London is proud to be a global European city and sent a clear message that this city is going to continue being open-minded, diverse and outward-looking. This is not the first time we have themed the fireworks to convey Londoners’ values of diversity and inclusion. In 2017, the fireworks were themed around women’s equality, to kick off our “Behind Every Great City” campaign. This featured a women-only soundtrack and a projection of the Venus symbol on the Shell building.

Susan Hall: Thank you, MrMayor. Was anyone in your political office involved in signing off the display of the EU flag on the London Eye?

Sadiq Khan: By “political office”, Chairman, I am not sure what the Assembly Member refers to.

Susan Hall: OK. Who signed off for the EU flag to be on the London Eye?

Sadiq Khan: Ultimately me, but as has been the case for the past 15years, the fireworks display was produced by JackMorton [Worldwide]. Discussions were held between GLA officials and my Mayoral Director to decide the overall theme of the fireworks, which I then agreed.

Susan Hall: Fine. On an evening that you, as the Mayor of London, should have been bringing people together, you caused yet more division. Were you just trying to cause controversy?

Sadiq Khan: I am not sure, Chairman, what division the Assembly Member refers to. Maybe she can explain.

Susan Hall: Since you are totally obsessed with Brexit, you obviously realised it causes division and that is all you seem to do at the moment. Given that it caused division and annoyance by many of us who voted Brexit, did you not realise it would cause controversy?

Sadiq Khan: I am surprised how sensitive the Assembly Member is in relation to these very important issues. I am surprised the Assembly Member is against us showing the world we are internationally-minded, outward-looking, pluralistic. I am surprised any Member of an Assembly in London could be against making Londoners who are EU citizens feel welcome and included. We are Europeans; we are part of Europe. We are going to stay being part of Europe and we are still a member of the EU. I am not sure what has offended the Assembly Member so much.

Susan Hall: It is not just me, MrMayor. It is those of us that voted Brexit. I repeat, on an evening when everybody should have been brought together - and that is your job as Mayor of this wonderful city - you should not have chosen something that was so divisive. I am just asking whether you did not realise it would be divisive. You spend your entire life being surprised at what I think and say and do, but I am surprised if you did not genuinely realise that this would be divisive. Did you not realise it would be divisive, MrMayor?

Sadiq Khan: I absolutely realised this would bring London together and would make Londoners who are EU citizens feeling vulnerable feel welcome in our great city. I absolutely realise the world is watching our city at a time when, because they read the press, they may feel when they see our Prime Minister that we are somehow going to become inward-looking, but we really need to make sure that they know we are not insular. I cannot think of a better way to reassure those around the world that London will carry on being an internationalist, pluralistic European city than by the fireworks display, which I thought was fantastic.

Susan Hall: MrMayor, would you not agree that your complete obsession with Brexit means that you are taking your eye off the ball? You are looking at crime levels - or we are - that are going through the roof. Everywhere is dangerous now in London. That is your responsibility. Brexit is not. If you look at the hole in the finances of TfL, it is an absolute disgrace. That is your responsibility. Brexit is not. When are you going to stop obsessing about Brexit and deal with what you are responsible for? From this side, all we ever see is you go on and on about Brexit. Can we please try to concentrate on what you are responsible for?

Sadiq Khan: Chairman, you have allowed that question in order, so I am sure you will allow me to respond to it. My answer will be in order as well, because the question on the fireworks display has now gone into crime and transport, so it must be in order if you have allowed it.
Let me respond to the two points made. The two points made were my focus in relation in crime and my focus in relation to transport. Let me first deal with the issue of crime. Since I became Mayor, we have gone from having just one Dedicated Ward Officer (DWO) in wards to having two DWOs in a ward, plus a Community Support Officer. I have lobbied the Government to reverse the cuts they made over the first eight years of this decade, when they cut £835million from our budget; they are making further cuts of £235million from our budget. The previous Mayor [Boris Johnson] failed to raise council tax to fill the massive hole left by this cut. I have increased in my first three years the council tax to help manage the decline of police officer numbers caused by central Government’s cuts, in my first year raising council tax to, roughly speaking, £20million to help support the police; in my second year, raising council tax to £110million to help support the police, plus business rates‑‑

Susan Hall: If I can interrupt you‑‑

Sadiq Khan: I am sorry, Chairman. You allowed the question to be in order.

Tony Arbour: I did allow the question.

Sadiq Khan: I will answer both.

Tony Arbour: Members‑‑

Sadiq Khan: I am sorry, Chairman, she raised the issue of crime and transport. As usual, you intervene in my answer.

Tony Arbour: No, you are answering the question and the Member might be suggesting that you are being rather verbose in responding.

Sadiq Khan: Chairman, I am surprised you are telepathic and you can read the mind of the Assembly Member, but maybe it is not a surprise at all.

Susan Hall: No, he is completely correct, MrMayor.

Sadiq Khan: Let me deal with the issue. The assertion was and the question was, “Why are you not more focused on crime?” I am explaining and giving examples of how I am focused on crime. Let me carry on. Also we have managed to not just invest in policing to make sure we do not fall off a cliff-edge, but also investing in young Londoners too with the Young Londoners Fund.
In relation to transport, because of my focus on transport - unlike the previous Mayor [Rt Hon. Boris Johnson MP], who managed in eight years to increase our fares by more than 42% - I froze TfL fares for the first three years of me being Mayor. In the last year, when the previous Mayor was running TfL as Chairman of the Board, if you exclude the operating grant, TfL’s deficit was £1.5million. We have managed to reduce that by more than half, at the same time as making sure we have unlimited bus Hopper, used by more than 270million; we have managed to bring in the Night Tube, which the previous Mayor had given up on; the night Overground, which the previous Mayor gave up on; extending step-free access‑‑

Susan Hall: MrMayor, this is my time.

Sadiq Khan: ‑‑ and improving services across our city.

Tony Arbour: I appreciate that you saw an open goal and you thought that you would go through it, but really you only need one good kick, not loads.

Susan Hall: At the end of the day, MrMayor, you may sit there and tell us what you have done, but the results prove that you do not know what you are doing, because crime is up and there is still a black hole in TfL’s budget. You can sit there for hours saying what you have done, but how ineffective are you going to be? Just look at the crime rates, just look at TfL’s budget. I have finished, thank you, Chairman.

Sadiq Khan: Sorry, Chairman, was that a question?

Tony Arbour: No. I am sure you knew that was rhetorical.

misuse of drones [2]

Andrew Dismore: Have the Metropolitan Police, working with airport management, in considering how to deal with the misuse of drones obstructing the operation of airports in London looked to the use of birds of prey, as in Holland?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-35750816/eagles-trained-to-take-down-drones

The Mayor: The MPS has previously looked at this option in some detail, including costs, effectiveness and appropriateness to London situations. Due to a number of perceived limitations, we are not currently pursuing this avenue. Counter drone options are considered by the MPS in liaison with a number of other agencies and in close working with the national policing lead for counter drone matters, DCC Serena Kennedy, Merseyside Police.

Sutton Tram Extension

Steve O'Connell: Your most recent TfL Business Plan promised, under the heading of "major long-term projects" that TfL would "continue to develop proposals for an extension of the tram network between Sutton town centre and Merton". Should my constituents be satisfied with that commitment?

The Mayor: Thank you, Chairman. Thank you for your support, AssemblyMemberO’Connell, on the development of the Sutton Link project.
I remain committed to improving transport provision in Sutton and my Transport Strategy sets out a policy to develop proposals for this project. This is backed in TfL’s business plan with £70million from the Growth Fund formally committed to this project. The scheme will improve public transport and access to jobs in a part of London that for too long has been dependent on cars or unreliable and infrequent rail services. Crucially, it will support thousands of new homes and jobs across Sutton and Merton, which is vital to help solve London’s housing shortfall.
To support a potential future application for powers to construct and operate this scheme, TfL needs to demonstrate that all possible options have been considered. A public consultation on the project closed on 6January2019 with nearly 6,000 responses received. The consultation asked for views on three route options and whether the project should be delivered as a tram extension or as a new bus rapid-transit route. TfL will report on the outcome of the consultation in the spring [2019] and will then make a recommendation on the option to take forward. A second consultation is planned for September2019.
Alongside the development and assessment of options for the Sutton Link, TfL is also working closely with Sutton and Merton Councils on funding options for the scheme. With major schemes such as this, funding is often complex with a number of options. I understand that good progress is being made on agreeing potential funding sources. Further significant contributions will be needed from both local sources and from national Government. I would welcome your support in lobbying for this.
While improved public transport in Sutton and Merton has been an aspiration for many years, development of opportunities to deliver this improvement is far more advanced than it ever has been before. If the funding needed can be secured quickly and if there are no delays during the process to gain planning consent, then services could commence in the mid-2020s. This should give your constituents the confidence that real progress is now being made.

Steve O’Connell: Thank you, MrMayor. Thank you very much for your kind words earlier to me and to colleagues, but you are going to be stuck with me for a little while longer and I will continue lobbying for many things but particularly the tram extension, not least because my borough, Sutton, is possibly the worst served for public transport within London.
I am reassured by your response and around your commitment of £70million within the business plan. The previous Mayor [Boris Johnson] committed £100million and the total cost of this keeps rising. At the moment we are at around about £425million and so there is a gap, which is important.
You mentioned the consultation around other options. Why did we extend the options to a bus link as well as a tram link? That came to me and to residents a little bit out of left field.

Sadiq Khan: The last consultation was back in 2014 and it is to ensure that the Works Order that goes through OK. You will be aware, AssemblyMember, that part of the process is applying for a Works Order from the Government. One of the reasons was to make sure that all choices were given to the local community in relation to the options they wanted.
One of the things that TfL looked into was the difference since 2014 and the advice was that a number of factors have changed since then and, for any future applications for powers to construct and operate the scheme, TfL needs to explore all possible alternatives to demonstrate that the right option has been selected. That has resulted in three route options for a tram extension with bus rapid transit being considered as an alternative to these, too.
We will wait and see what the response is, but TfL wants to be seen to be providing all the options to local residents in relation to the routes. We have to make sure that the Works Order goes through smoothly as well.

Steve O’Connell: OK, but the consultation document claims that the options could only be delivered at a later date, which is logical, but potentially at the same time as Crossrail2. There tends to be an element of kicking into the long grass. You do not get much longer grass than Crossrail2, MrMayor. Would you like to comment on aspirational timelines?

Sadiq Khan: That depends on which option is gone for. My understanding is that, for example, for those people who are advocates of the additional tram services on Sutton, the advice I have been given is that in the longer term, Crossrail2 may free up space at Wimbledon for additional tram services direct from Sutton using the on-street routes. It depends which option is gone for. As far as timelines are concerned, as I said in my answer, this could be up and running by the mid-2020s. As far as funding is concerned, TfL’s contribution at the moment is 70%, but you are right that there is a shortfall between what the boroughs and TfL are contributing and what is needed. With a good wind, there are no obstacles. The earliest the consultation could start on the final scheme is 2022 and the earliest services could begin by 2025, depending on the options selected.

Steve O’Connell: The options can be selected, MrMayor, but, as I say, there is a gap in the funding. You have £70million, which I am pleased with. The total cost is around £425million or £450million. The last time the boroughs put their hands in their pockets, we talked about much smaller figures and so there is a very substantial gap here. This project is listed in tier3 out of 4 tiers, which means that external funding is absolutely needed to make it realisable. There is a large gap there, MrMayor, is there not?

Sadiq Khan: There is. I hope those are the points you have made to Government in relation to the Comprehensive Spending Review, but in relation to devolving all powers to London this is the most advanced we have been in relation to the Sutton tram extension. We will start the second consultation this year [2019]. This is a shortfall and none of us have hidden that from TfL. This time TfL is giving 70%, Sutton 22% and Merton 8%, but that still leaves a shortfall. We will be lobbying the Government in relation to the Spending Review. We will also be lobbying the Government, not just in relation to any direct contribution it can give, but also funding schemes, whatever funding scheme that is. It could be land value capture; there could be other schemes involved. Councils themselves are looking into whether potential housing could be a way of further funding streams, but there is no doubt that funding all the options for the project is a challenge, regardless of which option is taken forward.

Steve O’Connell: Lastly from me on a broader south London point, like me, MrMayor, you are a proud south Londoner. This is a south London project. We have heard elsewhere Crossrail continue to soak up public funds at an alarming rate. I have always contended that has potentially little benefit for south London, but that will be a debate that we probably do not have time for. There is a consultation around reducing certain bus services around parts of south London town centres. I understand the Bakerloo line extension is moving away from us in practicality terms. It could be argued, Mayor, that south London is not really benefiting from transport infrastructure under your leadership. Would you like to respond to that?

Sadiq Khan: Yes, of course I would like to respond to that. Let me give some examples of the benefits South Londoners are seeing since I became Mayor. The Sutton tram extension is the most advanced it has ever been. You will recall previously the only time mayors talk about this is in the month preceding an election. We have been working on this ever since I became Mayor and so this is the most advanced it has been. Croydon has seen in the recent past a 9% increase in bus services in Croydon, so they have seen an increase in bus services as a direct result of me being Mayor.
South Londoners have also benefited from the TfL fares freeze over the last three years. This year [2019] I was able to confirm for the third year in a row a TfL fares freeze. By May 2020, the average household in Sutton and Croydon will benefit by £200 as a consequence of the TfL fares freeze, but also the investment I am putting into buses over the next period will benefit residents in Sutton and Croydon as well. Step-free access is another example. I am making sure public transport is accessible to all Londoners as well. I will carry on lobbying the Government for the commuter line services that south Londoners suffer from to be devolved and given to TfL as well. There are so many examples of some of the benefits south Londoners are already seeing. I could go on. The Night Tube is benefiting south Londoners. They often get to a station and then use the Night Tube at night, which is so much easier than going all the way to central London, as was the case before.

Steve O’Connell: We do not benefit from the Underground in the south, but that is enough. Thank you very much.

Street racing

Shaun Bailey: Are you still committed to tackling street racing?

The Mayor: Yes, street racing is extremely antisocial and very dangerous. It risks the lives not only of the public, but of those doing the racing. The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) is taking action, but it is still a serious problem in parts of London. Residents in Dagenham, Canary Wharf and Epping have all experienced illegal street racing and there have been incidents reported in Enfield, where this has been an ongoing problem for many years.
In 2017, following complaints by local residents about excessive noise, antisocial behaviour and reckless driving, the police stepped up patrols around Canary Wharf to prevent the controversial London Tunnel Run from taking place. Barking and Dagenham Council has also introduced a Public Space Protection Order for a large part of the borough to crack down on street racing. This order means that any drivers taking part in street races or performing stunts can be fined and it gives the police and the council the power to fine any spectators. Enfield Council, supported by the MPS, has also introduced a Public Space Protection Order, which has been in place since January2018. This Order means that using a vehicle in an antisocial manner is now being treated as a criminal offence. To crack down on the problem in Enfield, the police have also met with private management agents at a number of retail parks that have been affected by this antisocial behaviour. As a result, barriers to these sites have been installed and additional security added. While no arrests have been made in Enfield, neighbourhood officers are actively undertaking regular patrols in the area.
We have also ensured that Transport for London (TfL) is working to put a stop to speeding and drag racing along the A10 in Enfield. In February2018, TfL installed three flexible deployment cameras along the relevant A10 stretch to monitor compliance with the 40-mile-per-hour speed limit. This data is helping to prioritise speed enforcement deployments by the police. TfL also reviewed the traffic signals at this location in November2017 on Southbury Road junction. Changes were made to improve the progression of vehicles through the traffic signals. This has reduced the number of vehicles waiting at the junction.
The MPS, TfL and local councils will continue to monitor the interventions I have mentioned to see if further measures are required to mitigate the problem. London’s roads should be safe for all users and the MPS will take action against excessive speeding and those putting the lives of other road users at risk.

Shaun Bailey: Good morning, Mayor. Thank you for that answer. It was very comprehensive. I brought this to you in September [2018] and I am just following up. Thank you for your answer.
The situation has not improved markedly for local people. It has become so bad that the BBC did a special investigation into the racing up and down. I am just wondering if you can speak to the Commissioner [of Police of the Metropolis, Cressida Dick CBE QPM]] and just bring a little bit more focus to end it there on the A10 in particularly because it is particularly bad. We believe that that is boosting racing elsewhere. They are forming a little community. I wonder if you could just focus on that in particular to help it to end because, of course, you will know that that is an economic thoroughfare and it would cause all kinds of chaos if there was a really bad accident. It has added additional noise for locals as well.
I welcome your answer, but could I ask you for just a teeny bit more focus and could you commit to coming back to us to tell us what the situation is?

Sadiq Khan: Chairman, AssemblyMemberMcCartney has raised this issue with me. The MPS, TfL, the local council and the AssemblyMember have the focus and it is right that we continue to pay attention to this. We are fortunate in relation to the number of injuries and fatalities that it is not at the sort of level it could be, but we have to keep an eye on this. I will continue to keep an eye on this. I welcome the continual chivvying and challenging, which is important.

Shaun Bailey: OK. Thank you.

The Mayor: Good morning, Mayor. Thank you for that answer. It was very comprehensive. I brought this to you in September [2018] and I am just following up. Thank you for your answer.
The situation has not improved markedly for local people. It has become so bad that the BBC did a special investigation into the racing up and down. I am just wondering if you can speak to the Commissioner [of Police of the Metropolis, Cressida Dick CBE QPM]] and just bring a little bit more focus to end it there on the A10 in particularly because it is particularly bad. We believe that that is boosting racing elsewhere. They are forming a little community. I wonder if you could just focus on that in particular to help it to end because, of course, you will know that that is an economic thoroughfare and it would cause all kinds of chaos if there was a really bad accident. It has added additional noise for locals as well.
I welcome your answer, but could I ask you for just a teeny bit more focus and could you commit to coming back to us to tell us what the situation is?

Sadiq Khan: Chairman, AssemblyMemberMcCartney has raised this issue with me. The MPS, TfL, the local council and the AssemblyMember have the focus and it is right that we continue to pay attention to this. We are fortunate in relation to the number of injuries and fatalities that it is not at the sort of level it could be, but we have to keep an eye on this. I will continue to keep an eye on this. I welcome the continual chivvying and challenging, which is important.

Shaun Bailey: OK. Thank you.

Independent Article

Keith Prince: On 2nd January 2019, an article was published under your name in The Independent. Do you stand by the contents of that article?

The Mayor: I am delighted Assembly MemberPrince found time to read my article about transport affairs in The Independent at the beginning of January [2019]. I would encourage all Assembly Members and all Londoners to read this excellent article. It was published on the same day the Government oversaw an increase in rail fares of 3.1%, even after record disruptions, cancellations and delays to services. As I said in the article, I am proud of delivering real improvements to the lives of Londoners, providing them with a better transport network, while keeping TfL fares frozen. It begs the question, if I can freeze fares while providing for a better service to Londoners, why can the Government not do the same across Britain, including the commuter line trains coming into London? The article talked about my transport policies. This includes my TfL fares freeze, which by 2020 will have saved the average London household around £200. In contrast, TfL fares increased by more than 42% in the eight years before I became Mayor. This is in addition to my Hopper bus fare that has now saved money, not on 240million bus journeys, as I said in the article, but on 275million bus journeys since it was launched in September2016.
Despite the huge Government cuts to TfL funding, we have been able to do even more to make the cost of commuting more affordable. We are also continuing to make significant investment in modernising the transport network, easing overcrowding and making travelling easier and more accessible for all Londoners. Capacity will be increased in the Circle, District, Hammersmith and City, and Metropolitan lines by 33% and major station upgrades will be progressed on the Tube network. £2.3million is due to be spent on projects to make our streets safer and better and we are redoubling our efforts to deal with London’s toxic air.
We have been able to do all this despite the Government’s cuts to London’s transport funding by relentlessly focusing on what matters most to Londoners, by reducing waste, duplication and inefficiency and by building good working relationships with our transport staff and the trade unions that are representing them. I am immensely proud of the work of the TfL staff and we will carry on working closely with them and the unions that represent them to ensure we continue to deliver for London as a whole. The capital has one of the best transport networks in the world, the envy of many leading global cities, and it is something we should all be proud of.

Keith Prince: MrMayor, it was a very good article, I must say. It is just a shame that elements of it are simply not true. It is true that you have frozen some TfL fares, but you have not frozen all TfL fares, have you? While it is probably true that some Londoners who travel in London will not pay more in 2019 than they did in 2016, the vast majority of Londoners regrettably will pay more and they will pay more even if they only use TfL services, MrMayor. That is the truth, is it not?

Sadiq Khan: The truth is that all the services which TfL is responsible for have had their fares frozen. On an average day, 4million journeys benefit from the TfL fares freeze. That includes 2.5million bus trips that benefit from the TfL fares freeze. You are right, because part of the Travelcard is a consequence of the deal the Government does with the privatised rail operating companies, who are making massive profits. Those who have a Travelcard, because part of their Travelcard is paying for the Government’s deal with the privatised TOCs, they may not benefit from seeing on their Travelcard a zero increase, but as far as the TfL component is concerned, they are seeing a fares freeze. It is really important for us to celebrate the fact that for the third year running I have been able to announce a TfL fares freeze.

Keith Prince: MrMayor, I have looked at the TfL website and the only fares that TfL say they have frozen are fares on buses and trains and single pay as you go fares and paper single fares. They are the only fares they say they have frozen. They do not say they have frozen all their fares. In fact, I could read you off a whole long list of fares that have increased. I accept the point you make in relation to Travelcard, although you never use that in your articles to make that qualification, but I do accept, MrMayor, that you do not have control over that. But you do have control on setting the caps. If I was a pay as you go, so if I used my credit card or my cheque card to pay on the Tube and on the buses, my cap has gone up. If I use an Oyster card, which is a TfL product, and I want to use the buses and the trains and any other media, again, the cap has gone up. You set the cap. I agree and accept you do not set the Travelcard, but you do set the cap, and the cap, MrMayor, has gone up.
You do not mention that in this article. It is not true, MrMayor, that Londoners will not pay any more on TfL services. Londoners do pay more. I accept that if you only use the bus - and I have already many a time congratulated you on the Hopper fare - that is frozen. I accept that the single fares have been frozen, but the cap has been increased, MrMayor. It is simply not true that Londoners will not pay any more. Please, if you want to write an article, which you are entitled to write, can you just make Londoners aware and not mislead them over your fares freeze?

Sadiq Khan: Can I just say, I have listened carefully to what has been said. The fares for which I am responsible have been frozen and so it is a fact that millions of Londoners will benefit from TfL’s fares freeze for the third year in a row. That was in the article and that is true. Pay-as-you-go journeys on the Tube, on Docklands Light Railway (DLR), on the Emirates Airline and rail services where TfL fares apply are all frozen, as well as the cost‑‑

Keith Prince: No, it is not true, MrMayor. For pay-as-you-go fares the cap has been increased. It is not true to say that pay as you go fares are frozen. Pay as you go fares are not frozen. Yes, I accept the single fare has been frozen. That is correct, I accept that, but the pay-as-you-go cap - and most people who use TfL will at some point during the day get to the cap - has been increased. You have increased the cap. Is that true? You have increased the cap, MrMayor?

Sadiq Khan: Sorry, are you talking about daily, weekly? Which cap are you referring to?

Keith Prince: The daily cap and the weekly cap and the monthly cap ‑‑ no, sorry, the daily and weekly cap are the only two. They have both been increased, MrMayor. Do you accept that is the case or do you not know that is the case?

Sadiq Khan: No. The case that I accept is that TfL’s fares, for which I am responsible, have been frozen. Now, some of the services we provide, there is a cross-relationship in relation to other services in London, the commuter line services that I am referring to. For those services, because of the way it works, the crossover, we have not been able to freeze those. In relation to the other things, as soon as technology allows us to do so, we will make sure that people benefit from the fares freeze. There is some work we have done - and if it is not in the article, it was in the press release - and from this spring [2019], people will benefit from the weekly cap because the technology will then be ready. Some of the stuff is in relation to the technology, some is in relation to the way the cross-subsidy works from the privatised TOCs as a consequence of the deal they made with Government. I do not want to resile from the fact that TfL fares have been frozen for the third year in a row. In fact, you cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, Members of this Assembly‑‑

Keith Prince: No, MrMayor, all I am‑‑
Sadiq Khan (Mayor of London): Let me at least finish the point.

Keith Prince: No. Look, MrMayor, can I just ask you to be honest with Londoners when you are writing your articles, which you are entitled to? But you are not being honest with them, because you are giving them the impression that all fares are frozen and they are not. It would not hurt, would it, to say that you have done as much as you can do, but to be honest and say, “Unfortunately I have had to put up the weekly cap, I have had to put up the daily cap”, and then you can give your examples for that? That would be fair, that would be honest and that would not be misleading. Can I move on though, MrMayor?

Sadiq Khan: No, hold on a second, Chairman. Let me at least answer the question.

Tony Arbour: He has asked you a question, yes.

Sadiq Khan: When you reflect on the exchange, I think he has spoken more than I have, but listen, let me answer the question.

Tony Arbour: That is probably correct, really, the way the thing is set up.

Sadiq Khan: Chairman, the Assembly Member, and particularly the Conservative Group, cannot have it both ways. On the one hand they are saying because of my TfL fares freeze, there is a deficit in the TfL budget, so they are criticising the fares freeze. On the other hand, they are criticising my fares freeze not going far enough, so they have to be consistent. At least criticise me on one thing, not both, because they are inconsistent with each other.

Keith Prince: All I am criticising you for, MrMayor, is for misleading Londoners in the article, the principle of it.
Let me just move on, because there is another part of the article that I have got an issue with as well. It is that:
“Evidence suggests that the TfL fares freeze is already encouraging more people to use public transport.”
I have not seen any evidence to support what you are saying. All I can see - again, I have done some research, MrMayor - is that the numbers of people using TfL services is reducing.

Sadiq Khan: Let me explain this so hopefully the Assembly Member will understand. There are a number of things here. First, if you look at the London Overground, which TfL are responsible for, and TfL Rail and the increase in usage there compared to comparable services on the commuter lines coming into London, Southeastern and South Western, they have seen a dip. We have seen an increase, one example of the difference the fares freeze has been making. Secondly, if you look around the country in relation to buses, many cities across our country, many towns across our country, have seen a massive dip in relation to bus usage. We are not seeing those sorts of massive dips in London. Again, another reason for that could be because of the TfL fares freeze as well.
If you look at the numbers of people who have used the unlimited Hopper, which is linked with policies in relation to making transport more affordable ‑‑ in fact, the one thing that was wrong in the article was when I said 240million journeys would benefit from the unlimited Hopper, it is not 240million, it is 270million that have benefited from the Hopper. These are examples of people benefiting from the fares freeze, which is one of the reasons why I say it makes economic sense as well as other reasons for us to freeze fares. I am very proud for the Conservative Group to continue reminding Londoners that this Mayor has frozen their fares.

Keith Prince: You see, there again I do not disagree with what you said. I accept what you have said is the case, but that is not what you said in the article. What you said in the article is:
“Evidence suggests that the TfL fares freeze is already encouraging more people to use public transport.”
That is not true. The fact is - and it is your example - Overground services, the latest figure I can get is for November [2018] to December [2018], but I can tell you that from December [2018] and going all the way back to June [2018], every single month fewer people used the Overground in those six months, in this recent six months, to the previous six months. What you are saying is not true. The same is true for buses and you can also look at the Underground as well. Now, on the Underground there has been a slight increase, but if you bring together the buses and the Underground and the DLR, every single six months previous, year on year there has been a decline. If you add Overground figures to that, it is even worse. What you are saying is not true. I accept what you just said publicly here is true, but that is the point I am making.
You are not being honest with Londoners. You are being very selective and you are not being truthful. If you said what you just said in the article, it would make it a good article. If you said what we said in the discussion we had a bit earlier in relation to fares, it would have been a good article, but in fact what you have done, by not being truthful, you have made what should be a good article a bad one. I do not understand why you do it.

Sadiq Khan: Chairman, I think there is a question there, which is my response to that.

Tony Arbour: I thought that the question was, “Why did you say one thing in the article and another thing here?”

Sadiq Khan: Correct. Let me deal with that. There are two points. One is the one just given to me, helpfully, which is we now have, Chairman, a U-turn from the Conservative Party. They now support the Labour Mayor’s fares freeze, one very important point picked up from that exchange. Can we make sure we can get a transcript of that, please? I quite like the U-turn.
But secondly, I think the benchmark and comparator, with respect, is a wrong one. The Assembly Member is comparing the last six months of 2018 with the first six months. That is not the comparator. The comparator is those transport authorities have frozen fares, TfL, versus those that have not. Those are the ones where the Government is in charge‑‑

Keith Prince: That is not what you said in the article.

Sadiq Khan: ‑‑ the Conservative Government. We can see what has happened with other commuter trains. That is the right comparator. The comparator is the policies that I am pursuing versus the policies pursued by others. We can see that London is not seeing the sort of differences seen elsewhere around the country‑‑

Keith Prince: Thank you, MrMayor.

Sadiq Khan: ‑‑ where there is not a Labour Mayor running the show. The example I gave in relation to the London Overground is the most relevant one, because you can compare like for like, because it is a similar area we are talking about, London. The London Overground we are in charge of, TfL, benefit from fares freeze versus the other ones by Southeastern and South Western.

Keith Prince: Yes, thank you, MrMayor.

Sadiq Khan: The evidence is there.

Keith Prince: Thank you, MrMayor. As we are in such a good convivial mood, I would like to bring one other point to you, just stretching the goalposts a bit. Barking to Gospel Oak line, MrMayor, I do not know if you read this morning’s article in the City AM, but apparently - and I am not going to lay any blame at this second in time - they are going to run out of rolling stock to run the service. Would you look into that, please, MrMayor, and come back to me?

Sadiq Khan: Chairman, just to reassure the Assembly, I spoke to Bombardier on this matter recently and I have a meeting later on today to look into this issue.

Tony Arbour: Thank you very much.

Keith Prince: Would you write to me, please?

Sadiq Khan: Chairman, can I also, through you, agree to write to the Chair of the Transport Committee and other Members of the Assembly as well?

Keith Prince: Thank you.

Disability hate crime

Unmesh Desai: 376 reported disability hate crimes were reported to the Metropolitan Police Service between January and November 2018. Would you agree that this is likely to be significantly lower than the actual number of reported crimes?

The Mayor: Hate crime is unacceptable and is a criminal offence. That has no place in London or across the country. However, for some communities, unfortunately hate crime is a daily occurrence. From January [2018] to November [2018] there were, as you rightly state, 376 reported disability hate crimes. Sadly, like all forms of hate crime, disability hate crime remains significantly underreported. This means that the true number is very likely to be higher. Reporting crime is important because not only does it provide intelligence that can lead to perpetrators being arrested and charged, but it helps to connect victims to appropriate support in a timely manner. There are many reasons why people do not report. Victims can sometimes lack confidence in coming forward or may not recognise they have been the victim of a crime.
That is why we made a hate crime a priority in our Police and Crime Plan and have pledged to take a zero‑tolerance approach. No community in London should be made to feel afraid or unwelcome because of their race, religion, gender, identity, sexuality, disability or any other characteristic and I want victims to come forward to report and seek the help they need. We have committed over £1.1million to support services for awareness-raising for hate crime victims to ensure people can access help and support where needed. This includes the provision of a specialist service for disabled people as well as general hate crime advocacy services. In addition, the Online Hate Crime Hub is investigating offences and ensuring that victims have access to support services and that harmful content is more quickly removed from the internet. I have also appointed the first-ever Victims Commissioner for London, ClaireWaxman, who is working with various groups in London, including Stay Safe East, who represent disabled victims of domestic abuse, and HEAR Network, who work with victims of hate crime based on their disability.
Let me finish by saying this: I am proud to be Mayor of the most diverse city in the world, not just because of our social, cultural and economic might, but because we view our diversity, including Londoners with disabilities, as one of our greatest strengths. But on matters like this, the police alone cannot solve this problem. We all need to challenge hatred whenever and wherever it occurs and support and empower individuals to come forward and continue to report hate crime.

Unmesh Desai: I commend you for the work that you and your team have done so far in this area. Can I just say this: as you have rightly pointed out, underreporting and low detection rates are particular issues when it comes to hate crimes. I know earlier this morning my colleague, Assembly Member Duvall, touched upon the issue of inappropriate and insensitive language. Clearly it does not help when people, particularly in positions of authority, power or who have platforms use such language. Does it do anything to encourage confidence for victims of hate crime to come forward?

Sadiq Khan: It is worse than that. Not only does it discourage a victim from coming forward, but it can inadvertently - I am not saying this was the intention - encourage people to do bad behaviour. It normalises these sorts of views. That is why it is really important for it to be called out. We have to call it out.

Unmesh Desai: Absolutely. MrMayor, you have covered a number of areas and I have a note of some of the things you said, £1.1million being spent on a victim support service and so on. There are examples of good practice by West Yorkshire, where the police have worked with local charities such as United Response. I am sure the MPS are looking at ways of working with the third sector here, but could you encourage them, through your Deputy Mayor [for Policing and Crime, Sophie Linden] and the Victims Commissioner [Claire Waxman], to look at ways it can better work with the third sector?

Sadiq Khan: Yes. Can I just say, the third sector are doing some really world-leading work here? Can I thank you for praising them for the work they are doing? Of course SophieLinden[Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime] will look at the work in West Yorkshire. The MPS is working closely with the Disability Hate Crime Working Group and the independent advisory groups to look at refreshing its training. We are also looking at how we can make sure that the Hate Crime Liaison Officers have more specialisation. Next month there is a Core Working Group meeting with disability independent advisory groups and Inclusion London and I will make sure I ask them to look into best practice from around the country. If we can learn from others, we should do so.

Unmesh Desai: Thank you for that. I am sure you will join me and other Assembly colleagues, certainly on this side, and I am sure the majority on that side, that we need such campaigns to ensure that disability hate crime is not a hidden and forgotten form of hate crime.

Sadiq Khan: Absolutely.

Oral Update to the Mayor's Report

Tony Arbour: The Mayor will now provide an oral update of up to five minutes in length on matters occurring since the publication of his report. Assembly Members have submitted a request for a topic for inclusion within the update, which is on the matter of the challenge to the GLA tender process at Silvertown Quays. MrMayor?

Sadiq Khan: Good morning, Chairman. Good morning to the Assembly and to those in the gallery as well.
I want to start by paying tribute to you, Chairman, and to Assembly Members AndrewDismore and SteveO’Connell, whom we now know will be stepping down at next year’s [2020] London Assembly elections. Since being elected as Mayor, I have had the opportunity to see first-hand on many occasions the commitment you, Chairman, AssemblyMemberO’Connell and AssemblyMemberDismore show to your local communities. I am sure the entire Assembly will join me in thanking all three retiring Members for their service and wishing all three of you all the best for your future endeavours, but that is a long way off yet.

Tony Arbour: Thank you. I am not giving up immediately!

Sadiq Khan: Chairman, this week Members of Parliament (MPs) have done the right thing by rejecting the Government’s bad Brexit deal. MPs from all political parties realised that this deal would worsen life chances and reduce opportunities for future generations, not only in London but across the United Kingdom. I have continued to stand up for the best interests of Londoners by putting pressure on the Government to change its damaging approach. What happens next will define our future for decades to come and I have been clear that it is absolutely vital that the Prime Minister now takes any prospect of a no-deal Brexit off the table for good. This means withdrawing Article50 to stop the clock and to enable us to find a way out of this mess.
Following the no-confidence vote this week, it is now unlikely that the Prime Minister will do the right thing and call a General Election. It is clear that the only way forward to resolve this deadlock is to take this crucial issue out of the hands of politicians and to return it to the British public so that they can have the final say. At this important historic time for our city, I would urge all Assembly Members to join me in calling for Londoners to be given a voice in what happens next.
Since we last met, Chairman, I have been working on a number of strategies and initiatives to improve the lives of Londoners. This includes continuing to do everything possible to tackle violent crime not only by cracking down on criminals but by tackling the root causes of violent crime, too. I was delighted to announce this week that LibPeck, London Councils Executive Member for Crime and Police Protection and Leader of Lambeth Council, has been appointed to lead the new Violent Reduction Unit. Lib will bring invaluable leadership and expertise in building on her huge experience of working with community groups, London Councils and partner organisations across our city.
In recent weeks, I have also confirmed that my Transport for London fares freeze will go ahead for the third year running, making transport for affordable for millions of Londoners; launched a £38million fund to deliver community-led housing; published evidence that shows our bold action to tackle air pollution with the UltraLow Emission Zone will benefit the poorest Londoners the most; and launched in London the most comprehensive air quality monitoring of any city in the world. I have also called on the Government to do the right thing by waiving the £65 settled status fee for Londoners from other European Union countries.
Before answering your questions, Chairman, I have been asked for one oral update and that is regarding Silvertown Quays. This is in relation to the report of a High Court challenge to the GLA’s tender process. Chairman, as many Assembly Members will know, Silvertown Quays is a major site in the Royal Docks Enterprise Zone, with a capacity for at least 3,000 homes and thousands of jobs. Importantly, it will also provide substantial levels of business rates to fund the recently approved Enterprise Zone Delivery Plan. Procurement for a development partner for the Silvertown Quays site began under the London Development Agency in July2011 and, when the London Development Agency ceased to exist, the process was completed by the GLA. This process led to the Silvertown Partnership being appointed as the developer, and it signed a master development agreement under the previous Mayor [Boris Johnson] in 2013. Since then, the Silvertown Partnership has secured outline planning consent in August2016 but has not yet started construction work on the site.
In April2018 the Silvertown Partnership formally requested under the terms of the master development agreement that the GLA agree to the transfer of the control of the company from the existing members of the partnership to a new partnership between Lendlease and Starwood. Lendlease is a major global property developer and Starwood is an equity fund manager. In May2018, the GLA consented via a Mayoral Decision to the change of control. We remain committed to the existing plans for the regeneration of the Silvertown Quays but, as I am sure the Assembly will appreciate, it would not be appropriate to comment further given the ongoing legal proceedings.

Holiday hunger

Fiona Twycross: How many children in London accessed schemes to address holiday hunger over the Christmas holidays?

The Mayor: Thank you, Chairman. In a city as rich as ours it is shocking that this question even has to be asked. Sadly the grim reality is that more than half a million young Londoners struggle for food during the school holidays with many reportedly returning to their classrooms hungry and malnourished. Rather than working to fix this growing problem, Ministers have fuelled it in recent years with a austerity programme that has proved both economically illiterate and socially damaging. We have seen a series of callous welfare reforms, foremost among these is Universal Credit, which has already inflicted huge misery and hardship on many of the most vulnerable members of our society. Along with a freeze to working-age benefits, Universal Credit has undoubtedly been a crucial factor in driving more Londoners to food banks.
The fragmented nature of food provision makes it difficult to determine exactly how many young Londoners accessed schemes to fight food poverty over Christmas. What we know for sure is that the Trussell Trust gave out a record 134,244 emergency food parcels to Londoners in crisis in 2017/18 and over 47,000 of those went to children. The figures that are available also show that the problem is getting worse every Christmas as food banks and holiday schemes experience soaring demand for their services.
I want to take this opportunity to place on the record my sincere thanks to London’s voluntary and community sector for the incredible work they are doing to tackle holiday hunger in London. I am determined to do everything in my power to help. That is why in our new London Food Strategy we have made tackling this issue a priority and committed to measuring levels of household food insecurity for both adults and children for the first time ever. The data will help us to understand which groups and areas are hit the hardest and support the development of long-term solutions.
We have also been working with local authorities and primary schools to understand how they can better be supported to deal with some of the symptoms and root causes of child poverty. I will continue to support the Mayor’s Fund for London’s Kitchen Social programme, which will deliver 300,000 meals by 2020 to children from low-income households who are at greater risk of hunger during the school holidays. The only way we can solve this problem is for the Government to step up, halt its austerity drive and reverse the cuts that have been doing so much damage.

Fiona Twycross: Thank you. I was pleased that you mentioned both the Food Strategy, which I understand is being launched this morning, and the work of the Mayor’s Fund in terms of rolling out the Kitchen Social project. What more can be done to make sure we can expand the Kitchen Social project even further and are there plans to expand it beyond the current programme’s life?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you for your question. Kitchen Social has a target to support 330 hubs by 2020 and to provide 50,000 meals to school children in need. We are currently on target to meet that but they are doing a lot more as well. They are also providing training, food donations, healthy eating demonstrations and activity sessions. So one of the things that they can certainly help in is in relation to making the case for statutory provision to ensure that, during school holidays, those children who receive free school meals get assistance then as well, because what is happening now is there is statutory provision for them to receive meals during term time, what about non-term time?

Fiona Twycross: That would be a really welcomed move. You mentioned quite a lot of the issues that Government has created in terms of increasing levels of food insecurity where you mentioned higher levels of child food insecurity in London. How will your Food Strategy help to redress some of the impact of the Government’s policies?

Sadiq Khan: A number of things Food Strategy is doing, making accessible fresh fruit, vegetables and produce, locally, pushing into private communities, to help the communities working with parents and carers as well. We have tried to persuade the Department for Education to have some pilot in London with some of the work they have been doing. We have not been as successful as we would have liked, we wanted a pan-London pilot. So we are going to carry on lobbying. Again, any assistance from the Assembly is gratefully received. This is a good example of things that we are not required to do as City Hall but we think it is really important to do and we will carry on trying to support these programmes.

Fiona Twycross: Thank you.

Biodiversity in housing estates

Leonie Cooper: This month it will be two years since I published ‘At Home with Nature’, making recommendations to ensure new housing developments are designed and built to encourage biodiversity. How will you be ensuring that current developments, like St Ann’s Hospital in Haringey, are an exemplar for biodiversity net gain within high quality affordable housing delivery?

The Mayor: First, can I thank you, Leonie, for your report, which we all agree made a valuable contribution to the debate about how new housing developments can enhance the natural environment. I agreed for my team to explore how best to take forward the recommendations you proposed and am pleased to say today that many of these have already been or will soon be enacted in policy. In particular, the updated policies G5 and G6 within our draft London Plan set out how we will promote urban greening and protect biodiversity in new developments. This demonstrates my commitment to making London a national park city and making more than half of London green by 2050. The introduction of an Urban Greening Factor into the draft London Plan as recommended in your report will help ensure that new developments are designed and built to include greening, which will provide opportunities for wildlife to thrive. The StAnn’s Hospital site already supports a variety of wildlife and any future development partner will be required to protect this. The site will also deliver a minimum of 50% affordable housing up from 14% in the planning consent before the GLA bought it. My housing team will be publishing the tender pack to procure a development partner next month and will set out my ambition to apply the requirements of the green infrastructure policies in my draft new London Plan including protecting and enhancing the biodiversity of the site, delivering high levels of affordable housing, empowering the local community and delivering high-quality design. We are also taking steps to protect and - where possible - enhance the site of importance for nature conservation on the south area of the StAnn’s Hospital site. We will work closely with the local NHS Trust, which owns part of the site, to ensure that a holistic approach is taken to achieve this. The redevelopment of the StAnn’s Hospital site will be an exemplar of how green areas that benefit local communities and provide space for wildlife can be integrated into developments to create healthy, resilient and attractive, places for Londoners to live.

Leonie Cooper: Thank you, MrMayor, and my question follows on quite meaningfully from the previous discussion about Londoners and mental health, particularly child mental health, because access to green spaces is such an important area of assisting people who have problems or are developing problems in that area.
I just wanted to ask you a couple of things about the London Plan because the Examination in Public has just started this week. I was delighted to see the Urban Greening Factor and net biodiversity gain into the draft; I just wondered how the decision had been made to set the Urban Greening Factor at 0.4 for residential and 0.3 for commercial? Are we quite sure that is at a high enough level?

Sadiq Khan: The challenge always is to be realistic, practical and ambitious. What we looked into is a number of developments that have already introduced a degree of urban planning within the existing London Plan. These showed a typical development should be able to achieve a score of between 0.3 and 0.5 and so the scores that we have proposed are in line with the scores set by other city authorities who have introduced an Urban Greening Factor. There has been some looking at that and an evidence report has been published to support the policy and proposed score. You will be aware all this is examined during the examination process and so we have to make sure that what we are putting up can withstand the scrutiny because you will appreciate there are some people who would want it to be minimised and to remove it altogether.

Leonie Cooper: Yes, I believe some of the Assembly Members here today and myself are going to be called to give evidence in relation to a number of these matters. On a similar question, in terms of how the rating was devised for looking at some of the non-accessible green and blue spaces and I wondered how the scoring for that had been devised. Because the accessibility of green open spaces is so vital, relating it back again to AssemblyMemberShah’s question.

Sadiq Khan: No, I agree. In relation to the non-accessible spaces you refer to, the main purpose of the Urban Greening Factor is to ensure that new developments address issues from climate change adaptation to biodiversity net gain. You are right; we are trying to make sure there is sufficient publicly-accessible open space. If it is the case that it is not accessible, we still have to make sure we can do what we can, but where possible and appropriate we are focusing on new green infrastructure that should contribute to increasing publicly-accessible open space. You referred to the benefits to mental health, there are some parts of our city where there is little access to the green areas and so we are trying to make sure that in areas, which are deficient, we increase the accessibility to these green spaces as well. Some of the things we are looking into is what other parts of the country have done, which have an urban greening plan, and so again these are some things that will be examined during the examination in chief process.

Leonie Cooper: As we both know, also some huge benefits in terms of mitigating air quality issues as well by including these matters within new sites. Finally, I just wanted to raise the issue, which is a bit of a concern to me, which is about the boroughs and their ability to move forward on developing their own Urban Greening Factor. Do we really feel that they have sufficient expertise locally and will City Hall be able to support them? Because it is so important that we work hand-in-glove with the boroughs to make sure that we get the best that we can for London’s residents.

Sadiq Khan: We are very keen and happy to work with boroughs where we can. The good news is Hackney, Islington and City of London, have already published versions of the Urban Greening Factor in their own draft local plans and they have chosen to adopt the target scores published in the draft new London Plan, so that is good news. We have designed the Urban Greening Factor so it can be tailored to local needs. Of course they are tailored by local environmental and social factors but we are keen to work with boroughs to make sure we can maximise this. In your first question you explained why it is so important. There are obvious benefits from climate change that we know about, good design we know about, but it benefits us as a city and Londoners’ mental health, the sort of city we are going to live in and stuff. So it is really important and we are encouraging councils when it comes to their own local plans, their draft local plans, to look into what we are doing from the draft London Plan.

Leonie Cooper: Thanks very much, MrMayor. Thank you, Chairman.

Special educational needs and disability (SEND) inclusion in Skills for Londoners

Jennette Arnold: It is now more than 6 months since the Skills for Londoners strategy was published. What progress has been made on implementing it, and how are the needs of Londoners with Special educational needs and disability (SEND) being considered?

The Mayor: Thanks, Chairman. Our Skills for Londoners Strategy sets out our ambition to ensure that all Londoners and employers have the skills they need to succeed and work is well underway to implement it. From September [2019] we will be able to invest our newly devolved adult education budget (AEB) and the commissioning process for £130million of this has already begun. This funding will provide skills support to a range of Londoners aged 19-plus, particularly focusing on helping people with low skills and in low pay to succeed and progress in London’s economy.
Learners aged 19-plus with special educational needs and disability (SEND) are a key priority for this work and additional learning support will be available to meet special needs. At the end of last year [2018], we began the commissioning process for our new European Social Fund programme, which will see £65million being invested in helping Londoners, including people with SEND, to access a range of tailored support so that they can progress into the world of work.
We have also launched a range of skills programmes including our Digital Talent programme, the Construction Academy, and the Skills for Londoners Capital Fund that will help meet the needs of employers through training and state-of-the-art equipment and facilities. In November2018, we launched our Careers for Londoners Action Plan, which includes plans to invest £4million in careers clusters with at least one cluster focused on SEND learners.
I am confident we are doing all we can to use the powers we have to improve SEND provision. We all know that despite our calls for further devolution, the Government maintains responsibility for provision below the age of 19 where perhaps the most significant issues lie.
We have recently undertaken a pan-London review of the availability and quality of SEND provision and a report will be published shortly. I understand that AssemblyMemberArnold will be briefed on the review next week. You will not be surprised to learn that demand for post-16 SEND provision is projected to rise.
Chairman, I have expressed my concerns about SEND provision to the Secretary of State for Education [Rt Hon. Damian Hinds MP] when we met last October [2018] and I continue to call on the Government to provide sufficient funding to meet the increasing demand for London’s stretched SEND services. I would welcome the Assembly’s support in maintaining pressure on the Government to increase investment in SEND.

Jennette Arnold: Thank you for that most comprehensive answer and the good news. I look forward to receiving that briefing next week on that most important pan-London review.
Let me see if I can be creative here and make a link. As you know, SEND is something that I am so passionate about and it is something I will do whether I am here or elsewhere. Let me just say to you, MrMayor, that you have a letter waiting for you formally confirming that I will be joining my colleagues and not seeking reselection to this most worthy body in 2020. All good things must come to an end. Linking it back to SEND, I will continue to be championing this area of work.
I will then go on and just say, via the London Assembly Education Panel’s reports into SEND, we heard the most distressing accounts from families about their struggle to understand what services are available and what their rights are. We also heard that sharing of best practice - and there is some really good, excellent practice out there - is much needed in this area, and so I have a couple of asks.
Will you find time in your diary to meet up with some of these parents who, during our conversations with them, voiced their request to meet up with you? They know that you know, but they would just like maybe to be in the room with you.
Will you consider funding SEND best practice-sharing workshops or seminars to empower these families and practitioners to better navigate that complex maze associated with it, whether it is guidelines, legislation, services that are available, or what is going to be coming out of the AEB in September [2019] from City Hall? That will be another added, if you like, forest around what they have to deal with now. Will you consider those two asks?

Sadiq Khan: Chairman, let me deal with each of those points in turn. Firstly, Chairman, can I just put on record my thanks to Jennette [Arnold OBE AM], who has been a friend to me and a critical friend to me as the Mayor, which is really important in her role as an Assembly Member. I am sure, Chairman, that over the course of the next few months we will have a chance to pay tribute to all of you who are retiring and who have made fantastic contributions to our city. From whatever party you are from, your passion for our city and your passion for the importance of London government is second to none and I commend all of you, Chairman. I hope that we will have a chance to pay tribute to you over the course of the next period. I know, though - and I am afraid of this - that that will not stop you working your socks off to hold me to account over the next period, as you have done over the recent and long distant past.
Chairman, in relation to those different points raised by the AssemblyMember, can I thank her for continuing to make sure that these issues are on my radar? You will appreciate that for very good reasons, often, these are forgotten about and they cannot be forgotten about. AssemblyMemberMcCartney is passionate about these as well. I am very happy to meet with the groups that you referred to at an appropriate time. We will liaise about doing that.
I have been told about some of the great projects taking place and we support them financially and in other ways. Social Survivors, managed by the Sycamore Trust, does amazing work around autistic spectrum disorder. We are doing some work helping with Remploy and Barnet and Southgate College. We are also doing work with other groups across our city. Just to reassure you, AssemblyMember Arnold [OBE], the Enterprise Adviser Network offers support to a number of providers across our city, including specific support for employers as well.
The good news, which you will really appreciate, is that the Good Work Standard also highlights good practice. You made the point about best practice. One of the things that really frustrates me is when you see somebody doing great stuff and, rather than trying to copy and amplify it, you do not even acknowledge it. We have to acknowledge it and try to amplify it where we can and scale it up.
I will commit to carrying on doing that and I will make sure that Joanne [McCartney AM] and I follow up on the point about the meeting.

Jennette Arnold: Thank you.

Neighbourhood Policing

Caroline Pidgeon: What is your assessment of the current state of neighbourhood policing in London?

The Mayor: I was elected on a commitment to restore real neighbourhood policing after years of neglect by my predecessor [Boris Johnson]. We have delivered on my promise, even in the face of huge financial pressures. In 2010, each ward in London had one Sergeant, two Police Constables (PCs) and three PoliceCommunity Support Officers(PCSOs) working together to tackle neighbourhood crime, but unfortunately neighbourhood policing has been cut to the bone in the eight years before I became Mayor. By 2016, in most wards neighbourhood policing had been reduced to just one dedicated PC and one dedicated PCSO. Since I became Mayor, we have worked to ensure that there is an increase to two dedicated PCs and one dedicated PCSO in every London ward. These local officers, who know the community and understand the local issues, are there to help gather intelligence on local neighbourhood matters, prevent and detect crime and solve local problems. In effect, they are our local eyes and ears and are vital to keeping our communities safe and helping to improve the public’s trust and confidence in our police service.
As part of the Police and Crime Plan, we have also ensured policing priorities are set at a local level, giving police teams the flexibility to respond and resolve what really matters to people in their community, whether it is burglary, theft from cars or assault. I have tackled the causes of crime in communities across London. We have built in a public health approach, setting up a Violence Reduction Unit, as well as a new £45million Young Londoners Fund to provide young people with positive alternatives to crime and to help Londoners get out of criminal gangs and violence.
But there is no question that tackling crime across London has been made much harder by the huge Government cuts. Neighbourhood officers do not work in isolation. They are a vital part of a wider MPS and community team and the colleagues and the services they rely on are getting scarcer. We are now facing a situation where police numbers in London have fallen to the lowest levels in 15years, and eight years of austerity have decimated the very services that address the root causes of crime, from mental health services to youth clubs. As I have said, cuts really do have a consequence, something even the Home Secretary [Rt Hon. Amber Rudd MP] has now admitted. I have done what I can, increasing the police element of the council tax and diverting business rates into policing. However, the reality is that unless the Government steps up and reverses its huge cuts to our police, we simply will not have the officers we need to keep our city safe.

Caroline Pidgeon: Thank you very much for your answer. Your Police and Crime Plan promised to restore neighbourhood policing and ensure each ward - as you have just reiterated - has two dedicated PCs and one PCSO. But time and time again I have heard concerns from local communities about the number of PCSOs on the ground. In September [2018] I asked you for a breakdown of PCSOs and vacancies and I received no answer. In November [2018] I repeated the question and again I received no answer. We are now in the budget process and it is really vital that you are transparent with Londoners about what the reality is on the ground, not just your policy. Can you confirm today that you are assured that there are at least two DWOs and one PCSO operational in every ward in London?

Sadiq Khan: There are fluctuations, not just in PCSO numbers, but also in DWOs across London because of vacancies and positions not filled. For the PCSO numbers that I have got, the most recent number I have got is a month out of date, for obvious reasons. For London, police officer numbers are 29,788. That is a reduction, by the way, since May 2016 of 1,813, down 6%. It was 31,601 in May 2016. Police staff have also gone down, but the PCSOs you referred to, in May 2016 it was 1,566, in November 2018, 1,222. That is a reduction of 344, a 22% change. You will be aware one of the reasons for that is the massive cuts made by Government. We are trying to manage the decline in police officer numbers by the increased monies we have been given from City Hall.
The point I think you are alluding to is some wards do not have their complement. It was raised yesterday at the London Crime Prevention Board by the four council leaders as well. The Deputy Commissioner, [Sir] SteveHouse [QPM], and the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime, SophieLinden, are looking into this issue. In the south west in particular we have noticed some vacancies for DWOs, putting aside the PCSO point. We are looking into this in relation to different parts of London.

Caroline Pidgeon: In Streatham there are only two PCSOs. One of these is on long-term sick leave and so there is just one deployable PCSO to cover four wards. Is that acceptable?

Sadiq Khan: No, it is not. You will appreciate because of the cuts made over the last eight years, the numbers of PCSOs have gone down. If I was to give you the difference between 2010 and 2019, the numbers would be even more stark in relation to the difference, a reduction of, I think, 60%-odd. One of the challenges we have when there are vacancies is filling them as quickly as we can. If somebody is on long-term sick‑‑

Caroline Pidgeon: I appreciate that.

Sadiq Khan: ‑‑ it is difficult to pay for a new person to join because then you have to keep your numbers at a certain level for funding reasons. I would ask you and colleagues to please let us know when you know of these issues. The Deputy Commissioner [Sir Stephen House QPM] is really keen to be kept abreast of particular issues in particular parts of London.

Caroline Pidgeon: Clearly the numbers you have given are striking, a 22% reduction over that recent six months. There is clearly a recruitment issue here as well. When will the next recruitment drive begin so you can fill these posts and also fulfil your mayoral promise?

Sadiq Khan: Sorry, do you mean PCSOs or police officers?

Caroline Pidgeon: PCSOs.

Sadiq Khan: Let me be quite clear. On PCSOs, the commitment from me was each ward will continue to have one PCSO.

Caroline Pidgeon: That is not the case and so‑‑

Sadiq Khan: There are 600 wards in London. There are more than 600 PCSOs. The issue is not one of the numbers, the issue is making sure each ward has one, and a dedicated PCSO. Where there is long-term sickness or where there are vacancies, we need to make sure we address that issue. That is why I am saying please let us know where there is an issue. Because you can make PCSOs, frankly speaking, redundant and you cannot make police officers redundant, you can see the reason why those numbers are going down more starkly. As far as police officers are concerned, you will be aware of the numbers we have, record lows, and we are doing what we can to try to fill the massive gap left by central Government.

Caroline Pidgeon: There is no recruitment drive planned?

Sadiq Khan: For PCSOs, no.

London Transport

Tony Devenish: How do you think Londoners will judge your stewardship of London’s transport?

The Mayor: Thank you, Chairman. London has one of the best transport networks in the world, the envy of many leading global cities, but we must continually seek to improve transport in London and that is exactly what we are doing.
I am proud of what we have already achieved since I became Mayor. When I was elected, I was clear that TfL needed to become leaner and more efficient to meet London’s future transport needs and I challenged it to undertake the biggest overhaul in its history to help save costs that could be reinvested in the transport network. Two and a half years on, it is a very different organisation. TfL has been restructured to bring together previously dispirit functions with a smaller senior management team. Despite losing on average £700million a year in the Government grant, these changes have meant that we have been able to keep our promise to freeze TfL fares and preserve concessions and introduce the Hopper fare, making travel more affordable for millions of Londoners.
In contrast, since 2016, the Government has overseen an overall increase in National Rail fares of around 9% and on a regular basis commuters coming into London on Southern, Southeastern and South Western trains are having to endure a chaotic, not-fit-for-purpose service.
I am proud that by 2020 my fares freeze will have saved an average London household around £200. This is in addition to the 275million bus journeys that have been cheaper because of the Hopper bus fare. Again, in contrast, under the previous Mayor [Boris Johnson], TfL fares increased by more than 42% in eight years.
Since 2016, we have also been able to deliver significant improvements to London’s transport network. Let me give you just a few examples. TfL has increased services on the Jubilee and Northern lines and has increased peak capacity on the DLR‑‑

Tony Devenish: MrMayor, I have 30 seconds. Can I stop you and just ask you a question, if you would not mind?
Buses are the public transport for many Londoners - I am sure you will agree - especially our senior citizens and disabled. It avoids isolation for those very vulnerable people in their homes. Do you regret that since you have been Mayor there have been huge cuts in the bus network in central London, please?

Sadiq Khan: Chairman, in relation to the TfL bus network, it is important to state the facts and the facts are that, for example, over the coming year [2019], we will be contributing more to our bus network than any previous Mayor with approaching £700million in subsidy given towards our buses. I am really proud of the contribution we are making towards the buses in our city.
I am not sure if I have said this before, Chairman, but this is personal to me because my dad was a bus driver.

Tony Arbour: Thank you. We have come to the end of the discussion on that matter.

Zero carbon target for London

Caroline Russell: What steps have you taken to bring forward your zero carbon target for London?

The Mayor: Thank you, Chairman. We are in the midst of a climate emergency and the consequences of exceeding the 1.5-degree average temperature increase across the globe are significant. That is why my team has produced one of the most ambitious climate change action plans of any major world city. It is one of the first to be compatible with the highest ambition of the Paris Agreement of limiting the global average temperate rise to 1.5 degrees. It includes stretching carbon budgets and its implementation will see London become zero-carbon by 2050. This is far more ambitious than central Government.
Our pioneering strategy is underpinned by detailed data on London’s buildings and energy systems to demonstrate how our zero-carbon target can actually be achieved. I am doing everything I can within my powers, including setting up a £500million fund to invest in energy efficiency in the capital. Our £34million Energy for Londoners programme will help make London’s homes warm, healthy and affordable and its workplaces more energy efficient and will supply the capital with more local clean energy. Our new London Plan goes further than the national Government policy by making sure all new buildings meet our zero-carbon objectives.
However, our plan highlights that as Mayor I only have power to deliver less than half the emission cuts required to make London zero-carbon. The rest is down to the national Government. City Hall simply does not have the funding or the powers it needs. For example, the Government has minimum energy efficiency standards for rental properties but the policies are riddled with loopholes and are not properly enforced. The Government needs to devolve powers to set building energy efficiency standards so that we can improve and enforce them.
London has been chronically underfunded for a decade. The Government needs to acknowledge this and give us our fair share of Energy Company Obligation funding.

Caroline Russell: Thank you. I want to thank you for listening to the Greens and to this Assembly in taking the decision to declare a climate emergency. I agree that you have one of the most ambitious climate action plans of any world city and I also agree that you do not currently have the powers you need. As you say, you can only get to half of what has to be able to happen.
I just wanted to ask you about the difference between your London Environment Strategy and your zero-carbon plan. What is different in your new zero-carbon plan compared to the original Strategy?

Sadiq Khan: Do you mean the plan published in December [2018]?

Caroline Russell: Yes.

Sadiq Khan: What we set out in the plan published in December [2018] is the additional powers that we would need. What we did was we outlined in the Strategy actions to make London zero-carbon with a 60% reduction on 1990 levels by 2030 and a nearly 80% reduction on 1990 levels by 2040, in line with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommendation. The plan we published sets out the possible costs of achieving decarbonisation and it sets out what the costs were going to be and also‑‑

Caroline Russell: Sorry, MrMayor, can I halt you there? Absolutely, it covers the costs that are different and it covers the powers that you need, but it is still working to 2050, which you also confirmed in your initial thing‑‑

Sadiq Khan: It is very important because it covers the model and the analysis.

Caroline Russell: Yes, absolutely. It has done more of the work and that is really helpful, but it is still working to 2050. The science tells us we could reach 1.5 degrees of warming by 2030. That is just 12 years away, it is the basis for the Assembly motion, and it is 20 years earlier than the 2050 target. Are you planning to back up this very good extra analysis so that you can scope out the scale of what has to happen if we were to meet a 2030 target? This is so that you can ask the Government for what you need. You say you do not have the powers. If you do not know what is needed to get to 2030‑‑

Sadiq Khan: We do. Sorry, but it is not a secret. We do know what is needed. Look‑‑

Caroline Russell: You know what is needed for 2050 to be 1.5 compatible, but not for 2030.

Sadiq Khan: The Government is not going to get to 2050 let alone 2030. It is one step at a time.
There are a number of points you raised. I am glad you accept - because it is really important for this to be agreed - that we at City Hall only have powers to deliver less than half the emission cuts required to make London zero-carbon. That is a very important acceptance that we need to accept.
We know what we need from the Government in relation to national policy, in relation to regulation, in relation to economic incentives and in relation to funding. My point is that we have made it clear to the Government what is needed to get there by 2050, which they are not doing. Of course we can do the work in relation to what is needed by 2030 and that work is taking place, but the point is that the Government is not even doing what is needed by 2050, let alone 2030.

Caroline Russell: The Government is completely hopeless. You definitely need‑‑

Tony Arbour: No, AssemblyMemberRussell. Your time is up.

Caroline Russell: Sorry, I am totally out of time.

First dibs for Londoners

Sian Berry: How are you monitoring whether the number of Londoners being allocated a home ahead of overseas buyers is going up, thanks to your ‘first dibs’ approach?

The Mayor: Thank you. New homes should help Londoners rent or buy a home and City Hall’s policies to build more social-rented and other genuinely affordable homes are clearly key to this. More widely, we want more open-market homes, particularly those that are relatively less expensive, to help Londoners too. That is where ‘first dibs’ originated.
Our current approach to ‘first dibs’ is based on a voluntary offer made by over 40 homebuilders including the G15 housing associations and members of the Home Builders Federation in February2018. This offer restricts sales and marketing of new-build homes up to £350,000 to UK buyers for the first three months with a head start of up to one month during which only Londoners can buy them. They must be advertised on my Homes for Londoners portal. It also commits homebuilders to advertising Help to Buy homes on my portal. Help to Buy homes must be owner-occupied and cannot be second homes, and so they can only be bought by people who are or want to become Londoners.
My team is using the portal to monitor the ‘first dibs’ offer. It is only a snapshot in time, but right now there are three developments on the portal in Ealing, Waltham Forest and Newham that include properties for open‑market sale below £350,000 and 73 developments that include Help to Buy homes. Developments including ‘first dibs’ homes started to go on the portal in the late summer of last year [2018]. My team’s monitoring shows that across developments advertised so far, there have been 23 homes under £350,000 and over 1,000 homes advertised for Help to Buy. Through my team’s forward monitoring, we know of a further 184 ‘first dibs’ homes that will be on the portal soon and my team will keep a record when they do. Further down the line, my team will also look at Land Registry and other data to monitor whether ‘first dibs’ is helping Londoners to be the ultimate buyers of more homes.
All this information will feed into a review of the voluntary ‘first dibs’ offer next year [2020]. I accepted a voluntary offer from the industry as it was able to deliver immediately for Londoners, whereas using planning measures would take years to be adopted and have an effect. However, we need to make sure that the current approach is effective. Using my team’s monitoring information and other data, next year’s review will assess whether the voluntary offer is going far enough. Depending on the outcome of that review, all options are on the table, including looking again at using planning powers to achieve my goal and urging Ministers to change the law.

Sian Berry: Thank you, MrMayor. It is disappointing that you do not have data on the sales so far to show us today. As I understand it, the key difference between this and the previous Mayor’s [Boris Johnson] ineffective ‘Concordat’ policy with developers is that your agreement limits actual sales to Londoners for one month and then to UK residents for a further three months, while the previous Mayor’s Concordat was just about marketing homes. Therefore, you should be able to monitor more or less in real time off the Land Registry what is going on and it seems to have started in February [2018]. I am very disappointed that you are not giving us any more numbers on the sales and whether the proportion is actually changing. Do you have any idea about that?

Sadiq Khan: Your assessment of the difference between this and the Concordat is not quite right. We require as a consequence of the deal we have that all the properties go through the portal. Previously, what had happened was that they would be marketed in London at the same time as being marketed elsewhere and also not through one system and so you would have to turn up at various places and we were not sure how they would be marketed. This scheme means that they come to London first before being marketed, let alone sold, elsewhere but through the portal.
It is a way for you as somebody who wants to buy in London as a Londoner. You would know where they are being marketed and where they will eventually be sold. We know the numbers of people registered on the portal. The number registered is, I think, 22,000. Also, we know that more than 230,000 people have used the portal so far. We know people are using the portal. We know this is the way that the developers are agreeing to market. We think two years is sufficient information to see the sales.

Sian Berry: Yes, sorry to interrupt, but I am looking at the press release that was put out when you launched the agreement. You called it ‘landmark’ and you said that this was the first time you had got promises about sales rather than just marketing, and so it is that, yes?

Sadiq Khan: Yes. BorisJohnson was just marketing. This is selling.

Sian Berry: Yes. That is what I said at the beginning.
I want to ask about the website particularly because, obviously, that was part of the policy announcement and the website is up and running now. I have been monitoring it. I am on it now. The ‘first dibs’ part of your website says, “Go here and search”, but there is no choice of searching for ‘first dibs’ homes. The adverts for private sale homes do not say, “These are for Londoners now. Get in there before the month is up”. There is nothing there about ‘first dibs’ and so that is quite confusing.
The numbers also do not seem very high. You said that there were 23 homes so far since the summer [of 2018].

Sadiq Khan: The ‘first dibs’ are only available on the website in London for the first month, in the UK for‑‑

Sian Berry: It does not say that only Londoners or UK residents can buy them. There is no restriction.

Sadiq Khan: We know who the registered users are. They are Londoners.

Sian Berry: It is only the registered user that can use it?

Sadiq Khan: For the first month, they can only be sold to Londoners. After that month, in month two and month three, it is to Londoners plus the rest of the UK in advance of them being marketed or sold elsewhere. What happened previously was they were being marketed only, not just for sale, in London at the same time as elsewhere around the world. What has happened as a consequence of our policy and agreement is that Londoners have a head start on the rest of the country and the UK has a head start by three months on the rest of the world.

Sian Berry: Great. Last night I looked and there were no homes when I looked for private sale homes under £350,000. Today there are three adverts that seem to have gone up this morning. That does not seem very many. Can we get a week-by-week breakdown of what has been advertised on the site so far?

Sadiq Khan: No. One of the reasons why there will be fewer below £350,000 is because there are so few within the 40 developers we have to deal with that are producing to the market properties of £350,000. One of the reasons why we chose £350,000 is because you have to have a salary of, roughly speaking, £90,000 to be able to afford a property of £350,000. You will be aware of the research we did in 2016 that showed that half the properties bought by overseas buyers were properties of £500,000 or less. That is why we were concerned about this area‑‑

Sian Berry: Yes, but there are very few homes at that price. That is the point. That is why I am asking for the week-by-week breakdown. I want to see what is actually going up there.

Sadiq Khan: Sure, but do not forget that the developers we have to deal with - and the G15 as well - are also producing homes for rent as part of the genuinely affordable homes. On average, 38% are going to be affordable rent and so they will not be there because they are for rent. They are allocated by the‑‑

Sian Berry: Yes, but the thing is I am just trying to keep track of this ‘first dibs’ policy. It was an absolute mantra of yours in the 2016 election. Every time housing came up, you were there saying, “First dibs for Londoners, golden bricks”. We do need to be able to get the monitoring of this as soon as possible. Your review will be out before the next election so that we can hold you to account?

Sadiq Khan: It is really important that we speak about facts.

Sian Berry: Yes or no, ideally, because my colleague is‑‑

Sadiq Khan: I know one of the advantages of being a politician in for Green Party is that you do not read up on the facts, but the facts are that we cannot force developers to do anything unless‑‑

Sian Berry: I just want to know if your review will be out before the next election.

Sadiq Khan: And I just want you to know the facts. What is really important is that I use the legal‑‑

Sian Berry: You are going to have to stop. I am sorry, MrMayor. If your review does not come out before the next election, we will be having words.

Sadiq Khan: I think we are seeing leaflet being produced right now as SianBerry is speaking.

Sian Berry: Stop this, please, Chairman.

Tony Arbour: Yes, none of this mayoral election stuff.